• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Ireland off target on Kyoto and facing stiff penalties

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,505
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/1030/1162055437429.html

A new set of EU projections shows that Ireland will massively overshoot its Kyoto Protocol target to curb greenhouse gas emissions - unless much stronger measures are taken - thus running the risk of having to pay hundreds of millions of euro in penalties.

"Without additional measures, it looks like Ireland will be almost 16 per cent off the target set for reducing its carbon emissions by 2010. In fact, only three other member states will probably perform worse: Spain, Portugal and Greece," the European Commission said
This is just another area where the government’s inaction and inability to make the hard decisions is going to result in the waste of hundreds of millions of Irish taxpayer’s money. On top of this there is the environmental impact of the government’s failure and the future economic impact, which is shown by a new report that was released today that states that climate change could result in a worldwide recession.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1030/climate.html

A new report has warned that the effects of climate change could tip the world's economies into a global recession if governments do not tackle the problem by cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
 


saoirse 06

Member
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
21
Ok rocky, another area where the gov have made an ass of thinks.
So here's your opportunity to impress, what would FG in power do differently?
 

Akrasia

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
1,128
This is not just an issue to do with fines, it's going to affect every aspect of life in Ireland over the next 100 years

A report commissioned by the british government, issued today, states that unless we reduce our emissions substantially, by 2030, we could be facing a 2 degree increase and by the end of the century our global temperatures could be more than 5 degrees C above pre industrial levels which is basically a nightmare scenario
The report also states that for every £1 we spend on preventing disaster now, we will save £5 having to deal with the consequences of our inaction later.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm


instead of spending the money on fines we should subsidize public transport. It should be cheaper to travel on a bus or a train than it is to drive your own car.

Put all road Tax and compulsory 3rd party insurance onto the price of Petrol and Diesel. This would reduce the fixed costs of car ownership and increase the variable cost (which would reduce discretionary travel and encourage people to use a cheaper alternative) It would also be an increased incentive for people to use alternative fuels such as Bio-Diesel which should be completely exempt from excise duty for the foreseeable future.

We need to invest massively in offshore wind farms. Wind power is a huge resource that we are not exploiting properly at all. We need to develop inter-connectors with Europe so we can sell extra power to them in times of surplus, and buy power off them in times of deficit.
We also need to change our planning regulations to prioritise sustainable building techniques. All houses should have alternative energy sources built in. Miniature wind generators should be mandatory on all suitable developments, as should solar powered water heaters. They should be installed at the construction stage, or as a legal requirement whenever a house is sold. Grants should be offered to offset the costs.

We also need to think much more sustainably about what products we really need and what we should just do without.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
Rocky said:
Ok rocky, another area where the gov have made an ass of thinks.
So here's your opportunity to impress, what would FG in power do differently?
The controversy over salmon drift netting suggests that Fine Gael do very, very little differently.

When one thinks of how a handful of fishermen have dictated one key area of environmental policy (and been egged on by FG), the less and less likely it appears that our whole political system can force through environmental imperatives over all sorts of opposition. And that's even before considering the kind of opposition who - unlike the fishermen - have deep pockets also.

I think it's pretty foolish to blame the government for everything as well. Individual choices will always come into it. I'm as guilty as most with my carbon footprint: living alone in a big apartment, frequent flights, not the best at recycling, etc. Even with a new regime of taxes and whatever else, individual choices will remain individual choices. I don't want a government with the power to wholesale dictate lifestyles in the name of environmental change, and for all their bitching I doubt Fine Gael supporters do either.

I sat through an hour and a half of the BBC's coverage on this earlier today, including the set-piece presentation. It was typical NuLabour. All big ideas, big rhetoric and now also a lame duck PM free to do what Clinton did on Kyoto, i.e. Blair won't be around to deal with the Truck Drivers Part II.

Akrasia said:
The report also states that for every £1 we spend on preventing disaster now, we will save £5 having to deal with the consequences of our inaction later.
That finding comes with a big, big caveat: only if the international community goes along with things.
As was also stated, Britain could go back to the stone age and it wouldn't make much difference to the world's carbon emissions. That's even more true of a very small country like ours.
That fact gives everyone a handy excuse for agreeing with the need to do something on a global level but then not to do anything on a local level because the impact is negligable and sure aren't the Indians being very tardy and there's a billion of them.

Maybe I'm being too much of a cynic but having travelled recently in Russia and Asia, I can't see people there sacrificing material gains for such an abstract goal. I even find it hard to believe that either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael would hold their fire when political measures here start to bite and create opposition.
 

Eddiepops

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
106
Rocky said:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/1030/1162055437429.html

A new set of EU projections shows that Ireland will massively overshoot its Kyoto Protocol target to curb greenhouse gas emissions - unless much stronger measures are taken - thus running the risk of having to pay hundreds of millions of euro in penalties.

"Without additional measures, it looks like Ireland will be almost 16 per cent off the target set for reducing its carbon emissions by 2010. In fact, only three other member states will probably perform worse: Spain, Portugal and Greece," the European Commission said
This is just another area where the government’s inaction and inability to make the hard decisions is going to result in the waste of hundreds of millions of Irish taxpayer’s money. On top of this there is the environmental impact of the government’s failure and the future economic impact, which is shown by a new report that was released today that states that climate change could result in a worldwide recession.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1030/climate.html

[quote:1ug12n8v]A new report has warned that the effects of climate change could tip the world's economies into a global recession if governments do not tackle the problem by cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
[/quote:1ug12n8v]

I would say this, but I think that this is the Government's single biggest falure, and the one that will have the most serious reprecussions
 

Akrasia

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
1,128
Libero said:
I think it's pretty foolish to blame the government for everything as well. Individual choices will always come into it. I'm as guilty as most with my carbon footprint: living alone in a big apartment, frequent flights, not the best at recycling, etc. Even with a new regime of taxes and whatever else, individual choices will remain individual choices. I don't want a government with the power to wholesale dictate lifestyles in the name of environmental change, and for all their bitching I doubt Fine Gael supporters do either.
Here is where you are not blaming the government, saying that the individual has to take responsibility
As was also stated, Britain could go back to the stone age and it wouldn't make much difference to the world's carbon emissions. That's even more true of a very small country like ours.
And here is where you are saying there is no point in Ireland or Britain taking too much initiative because we're only a small part of the overall problem

That fact gives everyone a handy excuse for agreeing with the need to do something on a global level but then not to do anything on a local level because the impact is negligable and sure aren't the Indians being very tardy and there's a billion of them.
here is you saying that we should still act anyway
Maybe I'm being too much of a cynic but having travelled recently in Russia and Asia, I can't see people there sacrificing material gains for such an abstract goal. I even find it hard to believe that either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael would hold their fire when political measures here start to bite and create opposition.
and now you say that we probably won't.

I think we are only responsible for our own actions. We should do whatever we can by ourselves, and then try out best to get others to follow our lead. We should not accept any of the 'but we don't matter' arguments, I'm sick of listening to them, we heard them in relation to the U.S. troops going through Shannon (sure if they don't come through Shannon, they'll get there some other way, we'd better not upset the Americans by having any principles) And now we're hearing them from IBEC (sure we can't stop global warming by ourselves, so we'd better just keep polluting in case we damage our competitivity)
 

Eddiepops

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
106
Akrasia said:
Libero said:
I think it's pretty foolish to blame the government for everything as well. Individual choices will always come into it. I'm as guilty as most with my carbon footprint: living alone in a big apartment, frequent flights, not the best at recycling, etc. Even with a new regime of taxes and whatever else, individual choices will remain individual choices. I don't want a government with the power to wholesale dictate lifestyles in the name of environmental change, and for all their bitching I doubt Fine Gael supporters do either.
Here is where you are not blaming the government, saying that the individual has to take responsibility
As was also stated, Britain could go back to the stone age and it wouldn't make much difference to the world's carbon emissions. That's even more true of a very small country like ours.
And here is where you are saying there is no point in Ireland or Britain taking too much initiative because we're only a small part of the overall problem

[quote:1p0ckpyz]
That fact gives everyone a handy excuse for agreeing with the need to do something on a global level but then not to do anything on a local level because the impact is negligable and sure aren't the Indians being very tardy and there's a billion of them.
here is you saying that we should still act anyway
Maybe I'm being too much of a cynic but having travelled recently in Russia and Asia, I can't see people there sacrificing material gains for such an abstract goal. I even find it hard to believe that either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael would hold their fire when political measures here start to bite and create opposition.
and now you say that we probably won't.

I think we are only responsible for our own actions. We should do whatever we can by ourselves, and then try out best to get others to follow our lead. We should not accept any of the 'but we don't matter' arguments, I'm sick of listening to them, we heard them in relation to the U.S. troops going through Shannon (sure if they don't come through Shannon, they'll get there some other way, we'd better not upset the Americans by having any principles) And now we're hearing them from IBEC (sure we can't stop global warming by ourselves, so we'd better just keep polluting in case we damage our competitivity)[/quote:1p0ckpyz]

I think I love you Akasia
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,481
Carbon

here is you saying that we should still act anyway
and now you say that we probably won't.

I think we are only responsible for our own actions. We should do whatever we can by ourselves, and then try out best to get others to follow our lead. We should not accept any of the 'but we don't matter' arguments, I'm sick of listening to them, we heard them in relation to the U.S. troops going through Shannon (sure if they don't come through Shannon, they'll get there some other way, we'd better not upset the Americans by having any principles) And now we're hearing them from IBEC (sure we can't stop global warming by ourselves, so we'd better just keep polluting in case we damage our competitivity)[/quote:1p0ckpyz]

I think I love you Akasia
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,481
Kyoto is dead, and Durban is dead. Canada and Russia have told them to buzz off, Spain and Holland have cut all future subsidies to wind farms and Britain looks set to do the same. Global warming stopped in 1997 and we are now entering a mini ice age. (like the river fairs in London in the 1,600s.)
The plan to cut emissions was based on at least 2 false premises.
1) That using wind mills to produce electricity would result in a pro-rata saving in emissions. It actually resulted in an increase in emissions as conventional power plants were forced to run inefficiently to balance gusting wind , (Bentek studies) also there is no power from the wind on a calm day. (monty Python study) In order to refute this, they have taken to using grid electricity to drive wind mills on calm days. 2) That when a country taxes carbon, thereby driving industry oversees, it can import the product back in with no responsibility for the emissions caused. This results in a situation where steel and other metal used in Europe are imported from China and India where Kyoto is ignored. Europes emissions are down 15 % on 1990 but if you count these ones, it is up 3%. Emissions do not recognize borders. China is opening 70 coal burning power stations per week. Meanwhile thousands of staff are sitting on their backsides in oil heated offices administering carbon trading, driving diesel cars and burning coal in their fire places producing nothing.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,395
.... Global warming stopped in 1997 and we are now entering a mini ice age. (like the river fairs in London in the 1,600s.) ....
You start off ok val and then you come up with a piece of unmitigated codswallop totally without scientific foundation.

Only idiots believe in an imminent ice age, and you apparently are volunteering to join their ranks.

Only climate science deniers believe that "global warming stopped in 1997", and they are liars. 1998, 2005 and 2010 were record warm years, and the 2000s were the warmest decade since records began.

PS The Thames froze when the old London bridge (which was more like a weir) created a still pool that could freeze during cold winters.



This illustration is from 1682. The bridge was modified in 1760, and replaced at the end of the 18th century.
 

Tombo

1
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,302
The failure was to sign up to this lunacy.



I don't know why you watermelons are whining, this is what you wanted. Either the government pays the cost or we individually pay the cost directly (through much higher energy prices) this is your stupid game.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,395
Ain't that the truth. But the real deniers keep denying. And denying and denying.
"Global warming stopped in 1997."

Um, yes, very interesting, but very stoopid...

Like, the record warmest year in 1998 (one year after "global warming stopped"!). And new record years in 2005 & 2010. And teh 2000s being the warmest decade ...

These guys have it right ...

[video=youtube;UyB87VwPqw0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyB87VwPqw0&feature=related[/video]
 
D

Dylan2010

either way we should back out of the Goldman Sachs treaties. Give it time and well be burning car tyres to keep warm because we have all been robbed
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,246
The failure was to sign up to this lunacy.



I don't know why you watermelons are whining, this is what you wanted. Either the government pays the cost or we individually pay the cost directly (through much higher energy prices) this is your stupid game.
I will agree with this point. As the world is proving, investing in new technologies and applying them is taking a lot of time and much more money and still, the gains are modest. for example corn ethanol is classed as a biofuel but it runs largely on natural gas and only due to mandates is it currently blended. THe integration of cenrtain renewable energies into the grid continues to prove to be a problem and people are still unsure as to how much of a particular renewable power source can be integtrated without unbalancing the grid. Further many of the solutions we have (like a supergrid) actually induce inefficiency into the system and essentially promote waste.
 

kerdasi amaq

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,624
Actually, Ireland's emissions limits should be increased by a factor of five to compensate for our industrial backwardness.

Selling the surplus credits would bring revenue into the country.

Our elected loolahs missed a trick there.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
46,395
I will agree with this point. As the world is proving, investing in new technologies and applying them is taking a lot of time and much more money and still, the gains are modest. for example corn ethanol is classed as a biofuel but it runs largely on natural gas and only due to mandates is it currently blended. THe integration of cenrtain renewable energies into the grid continues to prove to be a problem and people are still unsure as to how much of a particular renewable power source can be integtrated without unbalancing the grid. Further many of the solutions we have (like a supergrid) actually induce inefficiency into the system and essentially promote waste.
Ochone, ochone, dem new teknolgies is too expenshive & we should go back to burning wood and whale oil.

Some people are just scared sh*tless of any innovation.

Chris Mooney | The Science of Truthiness: Why Conservatives Deny Global Warming
 

riven

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
2,246
Ochone, ochone, dem new teknolgies is too expenshive & we should go back to burning wood and whale oil.

Some people are just scared sh*tless of any innovation.

Chris Mooney | The Science of Truthiness: Why Conservatives Deny Global Warming
Unlike you I work in the renewable industry. Also unlike you I look for the problems of an industry so that I can solve them. You immediately assumed that I am in a certain position showing your complete inability to take onboard information in a balanced and unbiased manner. My positions are quite clear and have been said on this thread many times. To sum up for you

We will increasingly rely on renewables. However their adoption will be slower and more expensive than the industry indicates. Thus we can expect fossil fuels to dominate our fuel mixes for the medium term.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top