How much austerity is needed to meet CO2 targets?

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
Stop worrying about CO2, it's not the problem, but creating public fear about it is a way for governments to regain leverage over out of control oil companies, pure and simple. If governments really were worried about CO2, they'd simply ban Coca Cola and all fizzy drinks and keg beers. Problem solved. But they don't ban them, so we know CO2 is not the real issue
A ludicrous post except perhaps the bit pointing out that governments don't care. Just because they don't care does not mean the issue at hand is not real. You do surely accept that cigarette smoking is very injurious to health and therefore politicians should ban cigarettes altogether. But they don't. They don't care. That does not mean that smoking cigarettes is not bad for your health.

Looking to politicians to be examples to follow is a big mistake.
 


Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
Yes, I've been mild-green-ish for decades, for aesthetic /health reasons, and my "turn" came when I realised the obvious paths from where we are to where we might be were not being taken.

A decade ago, with the carbon trading scams, I realised the MO is to be seen to do something, but not actually do anything. Then I kept seeing more of this, without having to look very hard.

Then the basic science still won't tell us how much warming is due to us, or due to nature; which is not surprising as climate science is brand new. Scientists in turn rely on grants to keep going, and climate is their new opportunity.

If the EU politburo cycled to work, and saved on air travel by video-conferencing, you might think they were taking their own shpiel seriously. But when anti-austerity protesters kick off, the EU says they are "populist" or worse.


Trial of carbon tax opens in Paris
I spotted it too about 20 years ago when I was tasked by my boss with reviewing and seeking advice on the EU Waste Packaging Directive (I think it was 1997 when it was introduced) and how my employer should implement it. The biggest farce is actually Repak. Its the get out of jail card. Throw a bit of money toward it and bobs yer uncle, you don't have to worry about your impact on the environment. Throw a bit more money and it gets washed away as an essential marketing ploy to beat your competition. There is a science behind packaging, branding, colouration, artwork etc etc. If Repak was not in the mix, companies would have to arrange to take back their packaging directly. It would be seen purely as a cost line rather than a marketing tool.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SPN

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
Somebody close to me is adamant that when the FF/GP Govt. brought in the carbon tax that the money generated from it since then has not gone to the environment but "to pay back bondholders". I'm sure he's wrong mostly on the latter point but can anyone tell me if it has actually gone to the environment? Similarly to since the plastic bag levy came in- is the money from that going to the environment in Ireland also?
As far as I am aware, despite it being talked about for more than 20 years by politicians in Ireland, we still don't ringfence revenue in this country.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
The banks paid back the bond holders and other maturing debts with money borrowed from the ECB whenever they couldn't source new borrowings on the open market.

It came to about €160 Billion.

Then they paid back the ECB as the borrowers paid down their debts through to 2017.

The revenue from the Carbon Tax went to fund three expenditures.

- Retrofitting the homes of people at risk of fuel poverty with insulation, windows and new boilers

- Reducing VAT on the hospitality sector to create jobs

- Reducing Employers PRSI for new hires to create new jobs.

Any increases in carbon tax must also be ringfenced for specific measures, and not for another round of pay increases for the insiders.
The latter two initiatives by their nature dont have money allocated to them. So revenue from the carbon tax did not "go to them".

I also doubt carbon taxes went toward retrofitting anything. It all gets put into the same pot and the government decided to allocate all monies based on whatever they think needs funding.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,464
But hasn't technology progressed to the point where raising their standards should not necessarily mean raising their footprint? Lazy progress of course is the likely path forward for them. Further, less reliance on them by the west for the likes of plastic dumps etc would help. I believe the Chinese have risen to this challenge are no longer take our waste.
Has tech progressed to that point? Spell out your case, specifying each tech in terms of competitiveness. Define 'lazy progress'. I rather think that if a people can lift themselves out of poverty to then turn around and label them lazy is a rather bizarre reaction. Some people are never happy it seems and prefer to endlessly sit in judgement.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,464
There's quite a bit of this "social justice equals climate justice" stuff knocking around. The OP article, Naomi Klein, George Monbiot:

The Earth is in a death spiral. It will take radical action to save us | George Monbiot


I consider it divisive, dangerous BS. Counter-productive for a start - by making climate action an issue of the left it makes it look like a tool of the left to achieve other aims and repels environmentally-minded conservatives (see Roger Scruton, Green Philosophy).

The argument is simplistic and wrong. Climate change is caused by "the rich" so the rich should suffer, reduce their emissions and their wealth, and join the struggling middle and working classes (e.g. the gilets jaunes) to live simple but now-affordable lives, so climate change will be solved.

Nonsense.

First of all the struggling middle and working classes of Europe and the US don't want live simple lives - they want more stuff for less money! This is the crux of climate action - everyone needs to consume less or find carbon-free ways to consume. No-one yet seems to want the former - and it'll probably take quite a few rich corporations to achieve the latter!

Secondly, they (we) generally are "the rich" on a global scale, and the descendants of citizens of imperialist states. They aren't queuing up to pay for averting climate change or developing country adjustment.

Thirdly, fewer and fewer are voting for socialist or even social-democratic parties - the overthrow of capitalism remains a minority political pursuit, not one that's going to spur on the achievement of climate justice.
Regarding "everyone needs to consume less or find carbon-free ways to consume. " Yup, by e.g. cycling instead of driving whenever possible even if that just means cycling to the shops and back on your day off. If you have a garden no excuses... pull the finger out and grow some fruit and veg. Then you won't have to have fruit and veg shipped halfway across the world and placed in plastic containers. Just pluck it out the ground and bring it into to your kitchen.

Mostly when people say "everyone needs to consume less or find carbon-free ways to consume. " what they really mean is "everyone needs to consume less or find carbon-free ways to consume.... in a way that means I don't have to make any personal sacrifices whatsoever." Unless you are willing to make real, hard, personal sacrifices then you're just virtue signaling.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,464
well, if you're an AGW Denier, or if you've got no regard for the generations that come after you (i'm not sure which of these two categories you fall into).
anyway - for you, it's simple.
no need at all for "CO2 targets".
so your question doesn't even arise.
The best way become more environmentally conscientious is to first and foremost lift oneself out of poverty. That is the goal. Anything else is just empty, and callous, virtue signaling.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
Has tech progressed to that point? Spell out your case, specifying each tech in terms of competitiveness. Define 'lazy progress'. I rather think that if a people can lift themselves out of poverty to then turn around and label them lazy is a rather bizarre reaction. Some people are never happy it seems and prefer to endlessly sit in judgement.
Oh dear, I sense either a massive lack of not much imagination or an attempt to wiggle out of something to which you think you may have been caught out on. What this might be, I am not sure. Perhaps your platitudes about leaving the poor people alone.

Of course the technology to which I refer is the technology that the west is attempting to retrofit to cut down on emissions. Also, the tech that has been developed to reduce energy usage.

And thanks for deliberately misrepresenting my post. I was not of course accusing "them" (the poor people) of being lazy. "Lazy progress" referred of course to the old, pre technological developments, ways of dealing with matters such as chucking everything to landfill rather than recycling. Indeed, as we have seen from countless facebook and linkedin clips, the Asian countries simply chuck plastic into the seas and oceans. A lot of it is western refuse taken by these countries (at least recently by China of some of Ireland's waste). So yes, lazy progress i.e. doing it the proven ways that contributes massively to climate change.

So shove your judgement up your nether region. P.ie never ceases to amaze me when it comes to posters lack or self awareness.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,464
One of the tropes of western life is a better life, more housing, more food, more holidays, more pay... the result of progress.

The former manual-labour "working class" started buying cars here in the 1970s, plastics production boomed to make tacky goods, holidays abroad became common, and hey presto CO2 went thru the roof.

"Progressives" who like to do down business, and do down america, have found in CO2 a great stick to beat their targets with. But the basic problem is that less biz / farming / trade means less money for public service salaries.

Who will be the first TD to call this? We can't have ever-rising living standards for the public service, and have ever-rising CO2 taxes foisted on us by said public service.


Austerity has created indifference towards climate change
Austerity actually increases AGW. Lift people out of poverty and they will empower themselves to the point where they become more environmentally aware. Less poverty = less AGW. Pearl clutching socialists usually disagree, quelle surprise.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,464
Oh dear, I sense either a massive lack of not much imagination or an attempt to wiggle out of something to which you think you may have been caught out on. What this might be, I am not sure. Perhaps your platitudes about leaving the poor people alone.

Of course the technology to which I refer is the technology that the west is attempting to retrofit to cut down on emissions. Also, the tech that has been developed to reduce energy usage.

And thanks for deliberately misrepresenting my post. I was not of course accusing "them" (the poor people) of being lazy. "Lazy progress" referred of course to the old, pre technological developments, ways of dealing with matters such as chucking everything to landfill rather than recycling. Indeed, as we have seen from countless facebook and linkedin clips, the Asian countries simply chuck plastic into the seas and oceans. A lot of it is western refuse taken by these countries (at least recently by China of some of Ireland's waste). So yes, lazy progress i.e. doing it the proven ways that contributes massively to climate change.

So shove your judgement up your nether region. P.ie never ceases to amaze me when it comes to posters lack or self awareness.
MY my you suddenly found a bee in your bonnet lol. Calm down.

How does a country from the developing world lift people out of poverty, by the millions, without consuming fossil fuels? Surely we must concede that some fossil fuels will be burned up in the process of creating a wealthier and therefore more environmentally aware people? IF you feel tech exists that is on par with fossil fuels in terms of competitiveness and net output than set out your case and detailed comparisons.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
MY my you suddenly found a bee in your bonnet lol. Calm down.

How does a country from the developing world lift people out of poverty, by the millions, without consuming fossil fuels? Surely we must concede that some fossil fuels will be burned up in the process of creating a wealthier and therefore more environmentally aware people? IF you feel tech exists that is on par with fossil fuels in terms of competitiveness and net output than set out your case and detailed comparisons.
I'm perfectly calm. I have found p.ie to provide much myrth.;)

But of course fosil fuels will be needed. They will always be needed. But you appear to be narrowing your interpretation of my post to "fosil fuel usage". That's far too narrow a view of my post. I did also clarify that I was talking about waste disposal and the amount of plastic for instance that is dumped in the seas.

Climate change is much more than CO2 emissions and fosil fuel usage but don't let that get in the way of your own virtue signalling about the poor people in the world and the economics of lifting them out of poverty.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,464
These two women were brutally murdered for revealing the corruption of Putin's oligarchy, anyone disagree?
4bd7625c14276e40089edcc3b8568d72.jpg1a7dfbd9f8fd35e1db691375f91d6837.jpg

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
FFS5G6W5AVCF3GJXLZY5ZB5KGM.jpg

Real journalists, public commentators and authentic publishers expose the truth about Western atrocities. Therefore, free Assange and prevent him being tortured in prison or even executed. Anyone disagree? Before criticising other regions of the world pull the plank out of your own eye first.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,464
I'm perfectly calm. I have found p.ie to provide much myrth.;)

But of course fosil fuels will be needed. They will always be needed. But you appear to be narrowing your interpretation of my post to "fosil fuel usage". That's far too narrow a view of my post. I did also clarify that I was talking about waste disposal and the amount of plastic for instance that is dumped in the seas.

Climate change is much more than CO2 emissions and fosil fuel usage but don't let that get in the way of your own virtue signalling about the poor people in the world and the economics of lifting them out of poverty.
So you agree that it's necessary for the developing world to consume fossil fuels in order to lift themselves out of poverty? At which point, having increased their standards they will naturally become more responsive to the needs of the environment on ALL aforementioned fronts. Yes or no.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
So you agree that it's necessary for the developing world to consume fossil fuels in order to lift themselves out of poverty? At which point, having increased their standards they will naturally become more responsive to the needs of the environment on ALL aforementioned fronts. Yes or no.
I really don't know what point (scoring) you think you are making but in every "world" there is a need, economic and social, to use fosil fuels for many endeavours.
 

fat finger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,138
A ludicrous post except perhaps the bit pointing out that governments don't care. Just because they don't care does not mean the issue at hand is not real. You do surely accept that cigarette smoking is very injurious to health and therefore politicians should ban cigarettes altogether. But they don't. They don't care. That does not mean that smoking cigarettes is not bad for your health.

Looking to politicians to be examples to follow is a big mistake.
Correct up to a point. But riddle me this - why, if CO2 is a problem, is the government not banning Coke and keg beers?
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,459
The UK has reduced emissions by 44% on 1990 levels but its economy has mostly done fine since then, other than during the 2008 recession.

Austerity need not be the path. The government should subsidise renewable energy, and if necessary should push for a change to EU state aid rules to get there.

Germany's closure of its nuclear industry, under pressure from the Greens who even won control of one of the state governments, has ironically pushed them towards coal. They might not be very sympathetic. In his heart, I think Macron might be more helpful, but for the Yellow Vest movement.

Poland has been quite hostile to renewable energy because of its dependence on coal to reduce dependence on Russian energy.
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,130
Correct up to a point. But riddle me this - why, if CO2 is a problem, is the government not banning Coke and keg beers?
I don't know but I wouldn't take that as an indication of anything. For an explanation, please reread my post to which you responded.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
The best way become more environmentally conscientious is to first and foremost lift oneself out of poverty. That is the goal. Anything else is just empty, and callous, virtue signaling.


missions_between_1850-2005_for_different_countries.png

well, this is how the developed countries lifted themselves out of poverty,
by releasing enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere,
& the same countries are still enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere,
& the best scientific evidence available is that this has resulted in the Global Warming that we have experienced to date & that is ongoing.

the graph is from a World Bank report -
World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change;
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,270
Technology has not advanced. Even in Europe, fossil fuels still dominate transport. And then infastructure from steel, cement and glass. No way around that.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top