Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Global Cooling
Options
Comments
-
Kyoto for a start, We commit and agree to carbon penalties, set targets, and then the two biggest global environmental offenders are allowed to just ignore the treaty at every level. You might not take it seriously now, but If you find taxes increasing to pay a carbon penalty while 20 million fat americans drive around in SUV's from airconditioned building to building all using "stolen" oil, don't say you were never warned.
Aside from that, taxes on flights, food miles and road tax will all be subject to review under a truly green agenda, the impacts these have on people will inhibit their liberities in the second fastest way - financially.
I wasn't talking about getting black bagged for flying short-haul or owing a jeep, but a gradual erosion of choice from lightbulbs to lifestyle will in time effect your freedom to choose, and not always in a good way.0 -
Kyoto impacts no-ones civil liberties.AngryHippie wrote: »Kyoto for a start,
You're misrepresenting the reality of what the Kyoto agreement was and is.We commit and agree to carbon penalties, set targets, and then the two biggest global environmental offenders are allowed to just ignore the treaty at every level.
The Kyoto agreement only binds those who agreed to sign up to and ratify it. It was only ever intended to serve that purpose.
So its misleading to say that the two worst offenders are "allowed to just ignore" it. Anyone who decided to not sign up to Kyoto is allowed to just ignore it.
What will be more interesting is to see what happens to those who did sign up to Kyoto, as the signs are (last time I saw them summarised somewhere) that almost all (if not absolutely all) will miss the targets they agreed to.
Ah...so when you say that Kyoto has affected our civil liberties, what you mean is that its possible that it might do so at some indeterminate point in the future.You might not take it seriously now, but If you find taxes increasing to pay a carbon penalty while 20 million fat americans drive around in SUV's from airconditioned building to building all using "stolen" oil, don't say you were never warned.
Again...all things which have not come to pass. So again, you're complaining not about what has been done, but rather against any and every idea that has been considered, whether or not it will ever be seriously put forward.Aside from that, taxes on flights, food miles and road tax will all be subject to review under a truly green agenda, the impacts these have on people will inhibit their liberities in the second fastest way - financially.
What you're basically arguing is that its wrong to have changing legislation on what is and is not permissably legal to sell, based on criteria such as pollution.I wasn't talking about getting black bagged for flying short-haul or owing a jeep, but a gradual erosion of choice from lightbulbs to lifestyle will in time effect your freedom to choose, and not always in a good way.
If you had been campaigning for a return to our shelves of lead-rich paint, or leaded petrol, or CFC-loaded fridges before this whole global warming thing....I might consider that you seriously did consider that its an abrogation of our essential liberties to be prevented from buying what we like...that its unreasonable for a government to decide what is and is not legal for sale.
Then again...if you were doing that, I'd expect you to frame the argument that way, rather than complaining about the latest reason why some such legislation is being considered.
Tell me - do you think your life is seriously worse off now that you can't get free plastic bags any more?0 -
If you look back I never said that it had I am saying that it will there is no point pretending that it won't. Maybe in a less severe way than I suggested, but its the gradual slide that creeps along until at some stage we realise that we are locked into a programme that is having no positive effect because the major players have their own rules.
Ah...so when you say that Kyoto has affected our civil liberties, what you mean is that its possible that it might do so at some indeterminate point in the future.Again...all things which have not come to pass. So again, you're complaining not about what has been done, but rather against any and every idea that has been considered, whether or not it will ever be seriously put forward.
I was listening to Noel Dempsey on an interview about transport 21 last week, where he made allusions to the fact that congestion charges are being considered as part of the programme, I suppose that would not represent a threat to civil liberty ? having to pay to drive to a part of the country ?What you're basically arguing.....
I think my points were clear enough that you don't have to keep summarising my arguments inaccurately for me.
Basically what I am arguing is that the government can use the green platform to extract more money from the populace without providing any real proof of effect after the fact. They can promise it'll make the planet better, and slow global warming, but the reality of the situation is they can no more prove what effect the changes have made than they can quantify them.
The changes made should be above all else targeted at the areas of greatest effect, (which to be fair you did mention).To ensure it does not have adverse socio-economic knock ons,it should only be aimed at those that can afford it.
One of the few exceptions. It has removed a substantial portion of litter from the country.Tell me - do you think your life is seriously worse off now that you can't get free plastic bags any more?
BTW leaded petrol and lead based paints both have health issues concerning them, the predominant reasons for their banning was health, not the environment. That is misrepresenting reality, in order to prove a point I wasn't even making. We are on the same side of the argument here i suspect.0 -
lostinsuperfunk wrote: »cp251 & AngryHippie, what limitations are being imposed by governments on our civil liberties in response to climate change? I'm not aware of any.
Massive price rises in everything required for your existence. Food, water, heat, clothing, housing and transport. I think that is a restriction on civil liberties.
As for "Bonkey". Waken up.0 -
What will be more interesting is to see what happens to those who did sign up to Kyoto, as the signs are (last time I saw them summarised somewhere) that almost all (if not absolutely all) will miss the targets they agreed to.
In fact, a large number of countries are on target to achieve or even undercut their Kyoto targets. In Europe these will include Sweden, Germany, UK, and all twelve new EU accession states, with the possible exception of Slovenia. Many more of the 41 'Annex I' countries will achieve their targets by the end of the Kyoto period if planned measures are put in place. Some countries such as Ireland, Greece and Switzerland are less likely to reach their defined targets.
However, it's not just a case of whether or not a country meets its targets, it's also a question of how those targets are achieved. The UK, for instance, is likely to go 11% below its -12.5% Kyoto target and will be the best performer in the OECD. This is due to a great extent to the decline of manufacturing industry in that country since 1990. But UK manufacturing has simply been replaced by lower cost manufacturing in other countries that are not bound to Kyoto targets. (Remember that around 150 countries have ratified without having any emissions targets defined for them). The nett effect of this is of course that global CO2 emissions increase, inspite of Kyoto targets being met. 'Carbon leakage' is one of the main flaws of Kyoto.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nothing major has happened yet as of Kyoto - we agree on this.AngryHippie wrote: »If you look back I never said that it had I am saying that it will there is no point pretending that it won't. Maybe in a less severe way than I suggested, but its the gradual slide that creeps along until at some stage we realise that we are locked into a programme that is having no positive effect because the major players have their own rules.
You admit that what will happen is maybe less severe than what you originally suggested, but fear that its going to put us on some slippery slope because we're locked into the agreement. I feel that fear is unjustifiable. Why? Because the Kyoto Protocol only came into force this year, and only lasts until 2012 and no further. It is, more than anything, a "trial" to find out what does and doesn't work, what can and cannot work. We're not locked into anything, no more than attending university (a comparable amount of time) locks you into anything for the rest of your life.
Firstly, I'd point out that you already have to pay to drive in all parts of the country, so I think its a stratch to say that this is an abrogation of civil liberty. I'd also point out that it won't be the first place in teh country where you have to pay a supplement to drive.I was listening to Noel Dempsey on an interview about transport 21 last week, where he made allusions to the fact that congestion charges are being considered as part of the programme, I suppose that would not represent a threat to civil liberty ? having to pay to drive to a part of the country ?
Secondly, lets remember that its a congestion charge. The aim is to reduce congestion. Its not an emissions charge. Its not a global warming charge. Its not a Kyoto tax. Its a congestion charge. While I'd agree that it would be a bit disingenuous trying to sell this as a "green" or "anti global warming" move, I wasn't aware that the government were proposing it as such. My understanding was that they were selling it as a key part of dealing with traffic problems in Dublin which would have the additional benefit of helping with emissions.
Thirdly, I wouldn't consider it as a threat to civil liberty any more than I'd consider having to pay for kerbside parking a threat to civil liberty.
As with the lightbulb, you're again giving an example where there's a (seperate) problem which needs solving, and a solution is being proposed which is broadly in line with the types of solution already used in the general field being addressed.....and yet portray it as the start of what you allege to be a slippery-slope.
(I use the word allege deliberately, because you've yet to show that it *is* a slippery slope...that if the public accept the first one or two fo these measures, they'd lose all ability to change the course we'd follow as a result, even were we to wish to do so).
The particular case you picked to object to was where you argued that you fear that "a gradual erosion of choice from lightbulbs to lifestyle will in time effect your freedom to choose, and not always in a good way". You don't give a single example other than the lightbulb but want us to accept that some of it will be bad.I think my points were clear enough that you don't have to keep summarising my arguments inaccurately for me.
If you think some of it will be bad, then why not give an example of legislation that is being seriously considered that would be bad? I gave you a chunk of other legislation which is similar to the lightbulb legislation, showing that its not something new, nor is it something thats unreasonable.
But you offer no evidence they have done this, no evidence they will do this, no evidence that the public will blindly accept it as you claim they will. Your argument seems to be that because it could be abused, we should be distrustful (to the point of rejection?) of all of it.Basically what I am arguing is that the government can use the green platform to extract more money from the populace without providing any real proof of effect after the fact.
I don't necessarily agree that someone should be automatically exempted for paying for their pollution because they can't afford to.To ensure it does not have adverse socio-economic knock ons,it should only be aimed at those that can afford it.
Taking cars as a case in point...if someone is running an old car with terrible mileage, and huge emissions, I don't believe for a second that they should be exempted of being responsible for that on the grounds that they cannot afford to buy a cleaner car. That said, I also wouldn't accept that we could (for example) introduce a 50c/L additional "carbon charge" overnight to pay for emissions and just say "**** whoever can't pay for it". If we were to say today, though, that such a charge was going to come in between 2012 and 2015, at the rate of 12.5c/year....I'm not sure I'd have a problem with that, providing there was an intelligent plan of what to do with the money.
Can you give an example of one of the many non-exceptions?One of the few exceptions. It has removed a substantial portion of litter from the country.
We're not protecting the environment out of altruism. The root is still the same...the cost to society of not doing something about it is considered to be greater than the cost of doing something.BTW leaded petrol and lead based paints both have health issues concerning them, the predominant reasons for their banning was health, not the environment.
Perhaps. I know I'd object to stupid legislation as fast as anyone....I'm just not sure we'd agree on what is stupid. I additionally suspect that I'm not quite as cynical about the whole affair and what is being done about it as you and others seem to be.We are on the same side of the argument here i suspect.
My primary stance, though, is that we (society) need to accept that we have a scientific consensus (and what that consensus is) before we can meaningfully discuss/agree on what to do. If someone believes the science is duff, then even the best-intentioned, effective measures are unjsutifiable to them, as they are tackling a non-existant problem and thus must have an ulterior purpose.0 -
My primary stance, though, is that we (society) need to accept that we have a scientific consensus (and what that consensus is) before we can meaningfully discuss/agree on what to do. If someone believes the science is duff, then even the best-intentioned, effective measures are unjsutifiable to them, as they are tackling a non-existant problem and thus must have an ulterior purpose.
99.9% of scientists are government paid. I assume that is the consensus you are referring to.
Global warming is a scam, and it is becoming more and more obvious with each passing day.0 -
Nothing major has happened yet as of Kyoto - we agree on this.
http://www.joanburton.ie/?postid=206
Sometimes, nothing happening is indicative of a bigger problem.(yes I know that was from a few years ago, the situation persists.
Not really, Unless the congestion charges are directly used to fund public transport links to the city. And where else do you have to pay a supplement to drive ?? there are alternative routes in the motorway/toll situation if that is what you are referring to.Firstly, I'd point out that you already have to pay to drive in all parts of the country, so I think its a stretch to say that this is an abrogation of civil liberty. I'd also point out that it won't be the first place in the country where you have to pay a supplement to drive.
Another total botch - clamping - what is wrong with the french system, Parking attendants leave you a ticket that you can pay at the ticket machine, If you park in a double yellow you are towed end of story.Thirdly, I wouldn't consider it as a threat to civil liberty any more than I'd consider having to pay for kerbside parking a threat to civil liberty.
Clamps make the situation worse.As with the lightbulb, you're again giving an example where there's a (seperate) problem which needs solving, and a solution is being proposed which is broadly in line with the types of solution already used in the general field being addressed.....and yet portray it as the start of what you allege to be a slippery-slope.
You may not agree if You had to replace your old cheap bulbs that you are familiar with with a CFL that is not as effective, The slippery slope element is that while it starts with small commodities like plastic bags and light bulbs, If it were to impact on the choice of clothes, footwear, car or foodstuffs available to you, That would represent a more serious change ?If you think some of it will be bad, then why not give an example of legislation that is being seriously considered that would be bad? I gave you a chunk of other legislation which is similar to the lightbulb legislation, showing that its not something new, nor is it something thats unreasonable.
What chunk of legislation ?Your argument seems to be that because it could be abused, we should be distrustful (to the point of rejection?) of all of it.
Exactly. If its going to be put in, its gotta be watertight, or have a system of checks/balances to ensure if it is abused it can be at least monitored
Even though the pollution is only necessary because of the lifestyle model the country has committed to as being sustainable ?I don't necessarily agree that someone should be automatically exempted for paying for their pollution because they can't afford to.Taking cars as a case in point...if someone is running an old car with terrible mileage, and huge emissions, I don't believe for a second that they should be exempted of being responsible for that on the grounds that they cannot afford to buy a cleaner car. That said, I also wouldn't accept that we could (for example) introduce a 50c/L additional "carbon charge" overnight to pay for emissions and just say "**** whoever can't pay for it". If we were to say today, though, that such a charge was going to come in between 2012 and 2015, at the rate of 12.5c/year....I'm not sure I'd have a problem with that, providing there was an intelligent plan of what to do with the money.
So do you think that the new vehicle tax proposal regarding engine size are fair even though the nissan micra has higher emissions per mile than a v6 BMW with a 3 litre engine ??????
see last pointCan you give an example of one of the many non-exceptions?
My point is that while we in this country can make all the changes that occur to us and the benefits of that can be wiped out by the US, India and China then it is purely for altruism. It doesn't actually help the situation, it just gives us the "not my fault" higher groundWe're not protecting the environment out of altruism. The root is still the same...the cost to society of not doing something about it is considered to be greater than the cost of doing something.
Not just stupid legislation, but inconsequential legislation that has unquantifiable, immeasurable benefits that may not actually benefit us at all. But merely leave us with more legislation and more cost thorough enforcement and compliance.Perhaps. I know I'd object to stupid legislation as fast as anyone....I'm just not sure we'd agree on what is stupid. I additionally suspect that I'm not quite as cynical about the whole affair and what is being done about it as you and others seem to be.My primary stance, though, is that we (society) need to accept that we have a scientific consensus (and what that consensus is) before we can meaningfully discuss/agree on what to do. If someone believes the science is duff, then even the best-intentioned, effective measures are unjsutifiable to them, as they are tackling a non-existant problem and thus must have an ulterior purpose.
Good intentions ain't gonna stop climate change.
Good practice, good policy and good politics have a chance.
By the way, on the subject of Kyoto :
FromNOW Ireland, the group representing the interests of Ireland’s leading offshore wind operators have called on policy makers to heed the lessons of failure to meet our Kyoto targets and put a framework in place for reaching our renewable energy targets from this point on. The statement comes in the light of a report by the EU indicating that Ireland would fail to achieve its Kyoto target by almost 100%.
Ireland faces even stricter targets in the coming years as a tougher regime comes into power from 2012 onwards. The cost of failure to achieve these targets is a continuing dependence on the purchase of carbon credits as a means of meeting our obligations. The Government has already made allowance for the purchase of over €260 million worth of Carbon credits in the 2007 budget.
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1011929.shtml
260 million.....
I make that 61 Euros for every man woman and child. I wonder what else we could have spent it on ?0 -
WanderingJew wrote: »99.9% of scientists are government paid. I assume that is the consensus you are referring to.
Global warming is a scam, and it is becoming more and more obvious with each passing day.
Hi casey!0 -
There are, equally, alternatives to driving to places inside the congestion zone.AngryHippie wrote: »http://www.joanburton.ie/?postid=206
And where else do you have to pay a supplement to drive ?? there are alternative routes in the motorway/toll situation if that is what you are referring to.
I didn't refer to clamping, I referred to paying to park. At one point, all parking was free. Gradually, free parking has been replaced with various "pay to stay" systems. I don't see a problem with this, personally, and I also see a parallel with the congestion problem.Another total botch - clamping - what is wrong with the french system, Parking attendants leave you a ticket that you can pay at the ticket machine, If you park in a double yellow you are towed end of story. Clamps make the situation worse.
If I left all my bulbs as "glow pears" (literal translation of the Swiss term for them) and then tried replacing each and every one of them at one go....sure...I'd be pretty annoyed at the one-time charge. Alternately, I could do as I'm doing with batteries) which is replacing each set as they die with a set of rechargeables. With the costs spread out over time like that, I won't notice the cost of change any more than I'll notice the savings in my household bill when I don't have to spend the price of a couple of pints on a pack of non-rechargeables every few months. The math says that longterm, it will save me money, but even ignoring the long-term payback, its a negligible cost unless I try doing everything at once.You may not agree if You had to replace your old cheap bulbs that you are familiar with with a CFL that is not as effective,
I'd oppose any legislation that was sprung on us overnight which required such a radical shift, but telling us that lightbulbs will be removed in (say) 4-5 years gives me those 4-5 years plus whatever time I choose to stockpile for to transition. Over such a timeframe, the costs become negligible.
You agreed that replacing plastic bags was good. You agreed (albeit implicitly) that replacing things that were a health issue was good. So aside our differences on the merits of replacing light bulbs, all the evidence you've provided so far suggests that there's a "slippery slope" of making things better, with a minimal or nonexistant cost to the consumer except where the consumer mismanages things.The slippery slope element is that while it starts with small commodities like plastic bags and light bulbs,
I listed a number of things that used to be legal and available, but which are no longer available, nor would be legal to be made available.What chunk of legislation ?
But then your argument against global warming ultimately should be rephrased as being a fundamental mistrust of democracy in general, and our government in particular. Global Warming has nothing to do with it, really, because your concern is that we have a system that isn't perfect and you don't trust that.Exactly. If its going to be put in, its gotta be watertight, or have a system of checks/balances to ensure if it is abused it can be at least monitored
I said I don't necessarily agree. I gave a case in point where I don't believe we can argue that its not the individual's responsibility to pay for their choices.Even though the pollution is only necessary because of the lifestyle model the country has committed to as being sustainable ?
As fgor what pollution is necessary...well thats the core of the entire debate really. The efforts at reducing pollution are based on the argument that where we can reduce its because the pollution is not necessary. If the counter-argument is that its necessary for us, because we've decided we like the benefits that come with this pollution, then yes, we pay for it.
As for "the lifestyle model the country has comitted to"...what exactly is that? From my perspective, individuals choose a lifestyle, not countries. I know people in Ireland who don't have a car. They've made lifestyle choices based on that, but they don't have a car. So in the case I gave - the pollution from a car - its still a personal choice whether you have a car or not. Its still a personal choice that if you do have a car, what type of car you have.
We make those choices...and they're not sustainable choices, then its time we woke up and smelled the coffee, rather than insisting its wrong for anyone to do anything about making us realise this. If we get to choose our lifestyle, then yes, we most certainly pay for our pollution. If we don't get to choose out lifestyle, then where do we get the right to complain about the new lifestyle thats being chosen for us?
Have the government changed the proposal? My understanding was that it was based on CO2 emissions, not on engine size. Basing it on engine size is dumb. Consumption- or emission-based charges, on the other hand, makes more sense.So do you think that the new vehicle tax proposal regarding engine size are fair even though the nissan micra has higher emissions per mile than a v6 BMW with a 3 litre engine ??????
Similarly, any individual action you take can be undone by another individual somewhere else in Ireland. Thus, no-one should bother doping anything, because they can't make anything better.My point is that while we in this country can make all the changes that occur to us and the benefits of that can be wiped out by the US, India and China then it is purely for altruism. It doesn't actually help the situation, it just gives us the "not my fault" higher ground
Alternately, we could look at what happens when a movement reaches critical mass, and see why there is a point in individuals starting, then small groups, then larger groups.....ultimately putting pressure on even the largest players.
[/quote]260 million.....
I make that 61 Euros for every man woman and child. I wonder what else we could have spent it on ?
We could have spent it on the very types of things that people are opposing, which would have helped or enabled us to make our Kyoto targets. Y'know...emissions reduction measures.
We left everything as long as possible, ignoring the problem. We'll end up paying the fines that we agreed to and won't receive the benefit we could have had, had we spent that money on reducing emissions over the last 10 years instead.
Its possible, of course, that we've made more then 61 Euro a head by not having spent the money on emission-reduction....that the critics who said Kyoto is too expensive were right.
In that case, we shouldn't really complain about the fine, but maybe complain about how stupid our government were to sign up and then not do anything, when they could have simply said "no thanks" at the outset.....in which case I'm right with you. Ireland took the stupidest path possible....agree to the punishment, then do nothing to try and avoid it.
Of the other options, though, I'd like to see us tread the path of figuring out how to do it right (accepting that we'll not get it perfect along the way) rather than the option of deciding that because we can't be guranteed a perfect, effective outcome all the time, every time, that we should do nothing.
Ireland screwed up with respect to meeting Kyoto agreements because we didn't do anything until it was too late. I do not believe the lesson we should learn from this is that we should avoid the successor to Kyoto, so we can stay doing nothing. Rather, I believe we should look at the nations who've made the most progress and ask ourselves if they're really worse off having cleaned up their act.0 -
Advertisement
-
WanderingJew wrote:99.9% of scientists are government paid.
As I've pointed out before - and I'm pretty sure it was to one of your previous sockpuppets, Casey - the largest and most powerful of those governments are the most opposed to doing anything about global warming.
Why would these governments pay scientists to fake reports that they then try to suppress, try to disagree with, try to brush under the carpet, and then when all that fails, just flat-out disagree with any plans to do anything about it legislatively.....if they're really behind the whole thing in the first place.
Its like they're not only their own worst enemy, they're their own only enemy.0 -
Its like they're not only their own worst enemy, they're their own only enemy.
A wonderfully crafted demonstration of a two party system !
I take on board your points about lightbulbs and plastic bags, they are not the strongest of arguements, but they are illustrative of how erosion of choice, while fine on trivial matters can cause havoc when they spread to more serious issues. I do not trust the government, They have proven their incompetence on so many issues at this stage, Some of the opposition are doing an outstanding job, but they do not have the pressure of responsibility on them, so it is anyones best guess as to how they would perform in cabinet if they ever managed to get that far.
Ireland has developed a dependence on personal transport (cars) this permeates every aspect of life from employment to socialising, While it is sustainable for this generation (maybe), Our children are growing up knowing only this lifestyle, they do not know what the alternative is, as none has been put forward in a meaningful way.
It is going to literally take an emergency to get any progress on this issue. We cannot all go anywhere we want anytime we want for any reason, that is to say, we can now, but no government can guarantee the same conditions in 5 years time. Will our Govt. have the resources in place in 5 years time to complete those journeys without using private transport ? NO.
Will they have the resources in place by 2021 ? NO
Are the even looking at the issue from that standpoint or are they just trying to make it better bit by bit in the same slipshod way that brought us the M50 Mk 1 ? We should be moving towards the car being an unnecessary luxury item, instead we are spending vast amounts on roads that could see their capacity peak within the next 5-10 years. There could be a rail interchange the full length of the M50 with a park and ride system similar to Luas Red Cow.
All I am saying is that the government are doing little to assuage my mistrust by patching together separate plans without any coherent measures to tackle the root of the problem, which is our societies dependence on the car.0 -
The problem is, many drivers refuse to consider the alternatives. Have a look at these figures from the DTO:AngryHippie wrote: »Ireland has developed a dependence on personal transport (cars) this permeates every aspect of life from employment to socialising, While it is sustainable for this generation (maybe), Our children are growing up knowing only this lifestyle, they do not know what the alternative is, as none has been put forward in a meaningful way.- 52% of people said the car was their most often used way of getting around.
- 26% of people think only of their car for all trips.
- 40% of car owners don’t consider any travel options other than the car.
- 27% of all respondents said the car is preferable for short journeys of a mile or less.
- 55% of short journey car users said they were unlikely to consider walking instead.
- Only 3% of these short journey car users said they were very likely to consider walking for short journeys of a mile or less, instead of using the car.
0 -
AngryHippie wrote: »A wonderfully crafted demonstration of a two party system !
Except, in this case, its all been the one party.
Seriously...the notion that governments are paying scientists to support Global Warming in order to push some corresponding agenda is beyond ridiculous.
Of course I expect politicians to try and take advantage of the issue...but I'd expect them to do the exact same if science turned around tomorrow and said they got it completely wrong. Similarly, I expect capitalists to behave the same - they protect existing profit-generation as much as possible, until they're in a position to switch to new profit-generation systems....at which point, you see them switch positions from denial to
They're illustrative of how its find on trivial matters...agreed. I don't understand how they - being trivial matters - show that it can cause havoc on more serious ones. I don't suggest, incidentally, that such an approach cannot cause havoc on more serious issues, but nor do I accept that it must do so.I take on board your points about lightbulbs and plastic bags, they are not the strongest of arguements, but they are illustrative of how erosion of choice, while fine on trivial matters can cause havoc when they spread to more serious issues.
And thats the crux of it, really. The issue at hand is mostly a side-show....if it went away tomorrow, you'd still mistrust the government, and would still be skeptical of whatever they tried to do, regardless of how and why.I do not trust the government,
This is really where I wanted to get to with this line of discussion. Many people start being skeptical of Global Warming, or being skeptical of anything being done or proposed about global warming, but what they're really saying is "I don't trust the government, and the government supports this".
Just as the populace have, by reelecting them so many times. You (societally speaking) get the government you deserve.They have proven their incompetence on so many issues at this stage,
If these people support a government measure...does that make it a good measure, or a case where these people have bowed to some (hidden) agenda? The opposition doesn't always oppose. Its nice to see, though, that you've left yourself the space to not trust these people who've done an outstanding job, should they ever get out of opposition.Some of the opposition are doing an outstanding job, but they do not have the pressure of responsibility on them, so it is anyones best guess as to how they would perform in cabinet if they ever managed to get that far.
Excellent point. We have, indeed, gone down the wrong road, we continue to go down it, and we've gone too far down it for our own good. I agree entirely.Ireland has developed a dependence on personal transport (cars) this permeates every aspect of life from employment to socialising, While it is sustainable for this generation (maybe), Our children are growing up knowing only this lifestyle, they do not know what the alternative is, as none has been put forward in a meaningful way.
So...what do you propose? We need to build better public infrastructure, but that could take a generation and more before its good enough. In the meantime, do we just allow everyone to continue down that road, or do we try and convince them to be a bit more sensible and to make some allowances here and there? Bear in mind that the congestion-charge idea is exactly one such attempt...to encourage people to minimise (as far as is practical) their car-usage in critical areas....but you've said this is an unacceptable breach of civil liberty. Some people say that we just need to put in more public transport, and people will use it...but what if they don't? Given that its the type of question posed by those opposing global warming so often, allow me to ask you....what if we spend a fortune on public transport, and people decide to stay in their cars. Do we just let them, it being civil liberty and all?
Strangely, global warming is being billed as just such an emergency. The reaction that we all too often see is outrage that we're being told an emergency is imminent.It is going to literally take an emergency to get any progress on this issue.
Ultimately, I think Ireland will end up being that guy who didn't replace his electricity bulbs, didn't stockpile, then had every bulb in the house blown by a power-surge (of his own creation)....and will insist that its someone else's job to pay for his replacement costs. We'll live in denial as long as we can, then when forced to confront reality, will look to blame someone for having fed us the reasons our denial.
I'd like to agree, but to be honest, Ireland's roads are about 40 years behind the times, which is why they're urgently being upgraded.We should be moving towards the car being an unnecessary luxury item, instead we are spending vast amounts on roads that could see their capacity peak within the next 5-10 years.
By 2020, they should be only 20 years out of date.
On the other hand, I live in Switzerland, with arguably the best public transport system on the planet, and I don't feel the car is an unnecessary luxury item. Its not as necessary as in Ireland, and there are entire sections of demographic who are fine without one...but the car will be necessary for the foreseeable future. The aim is to reduce teh number of people for whom its necessary....and hopefully convince them to not have one (even if that means taking steps you see as being directly against their civil liberty).
There could be...but the infrastructure to move such volumes of people to/from such a rail system also aren't in place.There could be a rail interchange the full length of the M50 with a park and ride system similar to Luas Red Cow.
Its easy, in hindsight, to say we should or shouldn't have done something. The thing to remember is that until Ireland had money, our infrastructure was falling more and more out of date, but we didn't have an imminent problem because of it.
Once the money arrived, we caught up with (and surpassed) Europe in terms of the number of cars per capita and so many other things.....but no amount of money was or is going to create the equivalent infrastructure overnight that they've been building constantly since the 40s.
European nations built the infrastructure over a long, long period. They continuously upgrade. We've started from way, way back and are still playing catchup. WE don't just get to have a 21st century infrastructure because we've got money and figured out in the past few years that we should have one.
Can you identify when that clearly became the problem? Can you identify a clear solution?All I am saying is that the government are doing little to assuage my mistrust by patching together separate plans without any coherent measures to tackle the root of the problem, which is our societies dependence on the car.0 -
If people are unlikely to even CONSIDER using an alternative to their cars, then how will the AVAILABILITY of said alternative make any difference?
I'd reason that those people are basing their considerations on currently available alternatives.
Offer people a bus- , tram- and train- system with to-the-minute punctiality, high availability, integrated ticketing, cleanliness, security, and whatever else you like.....and I'd be willing to bet that even if they won't change their minds, their kids will.0 -
Considering the number of kids who get driven everywhere by Mammy and Daddy, I'm not so sure:Offer people a bus- , tram- and train- system with to-the-minute punctiality, high availability, integrated ticketing, cleanliness, security, and whatever else you like.....and I'd be willing to bet that even if they won't change their minds, their kids will.
http://www.onesmallstep.ie/yo_schools.phpThe latest research shows that over half of schoolchildren live no more than a 20-30 minute walk (2kms) from school and almost 80% live within 5kms, again a reasonably short cycle for older schoolchildren. But less than 40% of schoolchildren now walk or cycle.
So, over 60% of kids get driven to school and, unfortunately, they're going to get used to that level of comfort.0 -
I think that we are all on the same side of this argument, having reached it with different perspectives and priorities.
As a partial solution,
I would suggest a program for rapid upgrade of public transport links in conjunction with an SSIA style scheme whereby people who use Public transport as an alternative to car ownership in current conditions have a reduction made in vrt or road tax when their account period expires, This would both reduce the total numbers of new cars on the road for a period of time, while effectively providing demand for sub-contracted bus services to take up extra routes without masssive govt. expenditure, then in parallel with that, upgrade the rail lines to be able to cope with an extra capacity, extra routes along major commuter belts and more flexible ticketing systems, Mandatory bus transport for school runs into urban centres. No more school runs.
The Energy situation is being addressed gradually through renewables, there is very little extra that can be done outside the bio-fuel markets, which could see more investment.
There is little doubt that the Car manufacturing industry is coming up with solutions to the looming fuel crises,I read the other day about Tata the India based manufacturer having come up with a 100mpg car run on bio-diesel and electrolysis which would provide a neat option in a few years time for those that made the sacrifice of an automobile in the short term.
Granted the net result of the above might actually cause a slight reduction in the income generated from VRT and road tax, but surely the short term loss could more than be accounted for by the 5-10 year public transport gains possible???
Its just an idea. But it did have a positive effect on the economy during the SSIA period... Money saved could even be spent on car manufacturer shares with a view to the profits gained by boosted sales in the splurge years at the end...I'm a dreamer....:rolleyes:0 -
Angryhippie, we probably agree on more points than we disagree.
Kyoto is fundamentally flawed, and not only because some of the largest CO2 emitters on the planet declined to sign. I think it can only really be considered successful as a limited test phase of various schemes to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Let's hope that the agreement that succeeds it doesn't get crippled by politics and has a better chance of achieving its goals.
If the premise of human induced dangerous climate change is accepted and we want to do something about it, then there are choices to be made about how to accomplish this goal. Inevitably, some kind of trade-off has to be made, which may involve diminishing what you term "freedoms" but what I would for the most part describe as discretionary consumer lifestyle spending choices, e.g. a 2.5 L SUV vs. a Nissan Micra, an incandescent bulb vs. a CFL. Neither of those choices would keep me awake at night.
I think where we differ is on how we would like to accomplish the goals. Our Kyoto fines are a disgrace, and seem to be largely down to governmental incompetence, which is a worry. However I don't see how collective action problems of this scale can be addressed other than through our admittedly imperfect governments. Governmental incompetence is a completely different problem to climate change which we need to address separately.0 -
You mean the number of kids in a city which doesn't have the type of system I was talking about.Considering the number of kids who get driven everywhere by Mammy and Daddy, I'm not so sure:
Look at where these systems are in place, and have been for at least a generation. There, you'll find exactly what I'm suggesting.0 -
lostinsuperfunk wrote: »Kyoto is fundamentally flawed, and not only because some of the largest CO2 emitters on the planet declined to sign.
The USA is the only large CO2 emitter who has not ratified the treaty.
Every large CO2 emitter, including the USA has signed it.0 -
Advertisement
-
What sort of "system" is necessary for a kid (read, lazy little ****er) to walk to school?You mean the number of kids in a city which doesn't have the type of system I was talking about.
More than half of schoolchildren live within 2km of school; the best public transport system in the world is not going to provide an attractive alternative for such short journeys.0 -
My mistake. I suppose the real flaws are that the Annex II countries can increase their emissions as they wish and the USA has chosen not to ratify it. Tackling emissions growth from developing countries without depriving them of the ability to improve living standards is going to be a really thorny problem.The USA is the only large CO2 emitter who has not ratified the treaty.
Every large CO2 emitter, including the USA has signed it.
On driving short distances to schools in cities, here is a cheap, CO2 neutral, public transport alternative.0 -
What sort of "system" is necessary for a kid (read, lazy little ****er) to walk to school?
I don't know, but it has nothing to do with teh point raised.
I said that if you give people a world class public-transport system, either htey or their jids will adopt to use it.
The response I received was to the effect of "but what if those kids are being driven everywhere".
I stand by what I said. What is happening in Dublin today has nothing to do with it, because the only way you could class Dublin's transport system as world class would involve nuking a large number of other cities into dust.More than half of schoolchildren live within 2km of school; the best public transport system in the world is not going to provide an attractive alternative for such short journeys.
It doesn't need to. It needs to break the mindset that you drive everywhere. The rest follows.0 -
What I'm saying is that I wouldn't be so sure that if Irish people are given the choice between top-class public transport and a private car that they (or even their kids) will opt for public transport. I was using the example of the thousands of kids in the greater Dublin area being driven to school everyday to illustrate that:I said that if you give people a world class public-transport system, either htey or their jids will adopt to use it.
The response I received was to the effect of "but what if those kids are being driven everywhere".- These kids are getting used to cars, just like their parents, and are unlikely to switch to public transport later in their lives.
- Given the choice between walking and using the car for journeys of several hundred metres, a large number of people opt for the car. This would make it unlikely that they would opt for public transport over their car if they’re not even prepared to walk to the bus stop, train station or whatever.
No disagreement there.What is happening in Dublin today has nothing to do with it, because the only way you could class Dublin's transport system as world class would involve nuking a large number of other cities into dust.
Precisely my point, but I think this is going to be considerably difficult to achieve in Ireland.It needs to break the mindset that you drive everywhere.0 -
-
It isn't happening at the moment or at least very slowly. People drive because as often as not they have to. As bad as the traffic problem is. It's still quicker to drive. It's a chicken and egg situation though. Heavy traffic slows the buses. The problem is that even without the traffic the buses are not frequent enough.
Simple examples, I live in Galway. The bus passes my door but I only used it once. I arrived in Galway on the train, 7 in evening, (you see I am quite green), decided to ignore the taxi and not to call my wife out, thus avoiding increasing my carbon footprint. :rolleyes: I went to the bus stop. Forty minutes later the bus finally arrived. Ten minutes later I arrived home. The best part of an hour for a ten minute trip. It won't happen again. Similarly my car was in for a service. The garage was about a mile and half to two miles away on a bus route. I decided to walk in the direction of the garage and hope to collect a bus on the way. I was in sight of the garage when a bus finally appeared on the horizon. No wonder traffic is chronic in Galway.
It's not that different in Dublin. I decided to park and ride the LUAS from the Red Cow. I was charged to park in the car park. Then I caught the LUAS there and back. The next week I just drove into town. The whole effort was cheaper and quicker than the LUAS expedition.
The Green answer to all that is the charge me extra for the car trip while talking about improving the transport infrastructure. They won't improve it because that would mean either increasing taxes or diverting taxes from other needs such as the health service.
With the short termist attitude of most politicans in this country and beyond. That won't change.0 -
In the Dublin area there are a lot of unnecessary trips being made, school runs being one example. DTO Director / Chief Executive John Henry:People drive because as often as not they have to.If everyone left their car behind for just one trip each week, there would be 200,000 fewer car trips every day in the Greater Dublin Area0 -
People do make unneccessary car journeys. It's a fact of life. Lazyness in truth.
On the main topic, here is a site that may interest.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
Read the 'Who Decides'. Notice how he references the quotes such as:Heidi Cullen’s suggestion that the AMS should withhold certification from weathermen who did not, “truly educate themselves on the science of global warming,” leaving no doubt as to what the conclusion of said education should be.David Suzuki’s challenge, “to find a way to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act,” i.e., those who stood in the way global warming legislation. (This is especially unseemly, coming as it does from an official of a human rights group.)David Roberts’ deplorable comment that, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
You might want to check this out as well:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/3-of-4-global-metrics-show-nearly-flat-temperature-anomaly-in-the-last-decade/
But he's probably a paid shill of big business and oil companies. Just like me.:rolleyes:0 -
Let us indeed notice how he references the quotes.
The full quote from Heidi Cullen's text, for example, taken in context as a reply to a comment from Brian van de Graaf (a WJLA meteorologist) offering a commentary on Global Warming. If you go to the site you linked, then follow the link to Wikipedia offered after Heidi Cullen, you'll see both van de Graaf's comment and Cullen's full response. You'll also notice that although allegations of political motivation were levelled at her, Dr. Cullen denied that intention. Indeed, if you read her quote without bias, you'll see that she is not suggesting any single viewpoint, but rather that meteorologists not abuse their positions by making comments on issues they should be but are not well-versed in.
Similarly, on that website, there's a link to the wikipedia entry for David_Suzuki. Its worth reading, to note firstly that he's not a climatologist and secondly for the comment from Terry O'Neill that "Suzuki's alarmism is nothing new, and more-prudent scientists have long ago answered his hyperbole and exposed his faulty logic."
Finally, we should take a look at David Roberts comment. Actually, before we do that, lets take a look at David Roberts to see what sort of scientist he is. Oh wait...he's not a scientist at all. His own bio on gristmill is as follows :
David was born and raised in the South. A revelatory summer working in Yellowstone National Park convinced him that it was not the world but just the part where he lived that sucked, so he moved out West. After several wayward years spent snowboarding and getting an MA in philosophy (go griz), he woke up with nothing but a dissertation between him and an arid, cloistered life spent debating minutiae with the world's other 12 Dewey scholars. So he bailed. A period was spent trudging through the swamp of Seattle tech work, wading past Amazon.com, IMDb.com, and Microsoft, before the fine folks at Grist fell for his devastating good looks in December 2003
So basically, he's a writer for an on-line magazine. Reading a bit about teh magazine (from their own 'About' page), we find that they describe themselves as : "Grist: it's gloom and doom with a sense of humor. So laugh now -- or the planet gets it."
So what do we have here?
We have three quotes supplied to make some point. One is from the writing-based equivalent of a shock-jock. One is from a scientist who has a second career in broadcasting and a third in activism and who has long been recognised as being outspoken in that third role and who was not commenting on his own area of expertise. The third is from a relevantly-qualified scientist who was admonishing someone else for offering a commentary based on a position of comparative ignorance, because of the nature of that person's job and qualifications and the weight it would give their statements.
Jones then goes on to say that "For the expert to rebuke him with a patronizing “read a book” is an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the expert. " Funnily, none of hte comments suggested that at all. Only one of hte three comments was from an expert, and that comment was admonishing someone else for offering commentary despite a lack of expertise and a recognition that the issue was complex.
Indeed it is, Mr. Jones. However, one has to ask why you supplied two quotes from non-experts to try and make this point, and one from an expert who was complaining about non-experts muddying the waters.Jones' article wrote:It is up to the expert to explain his position simply, plainly, and in layman's terms.
No-one here has accused you or him of being a shill. I find it ironic that you make this comment in a post highlighting how some people aren't just sticking to the facts, and how such tactics are an attempt to stifle debate.cp251 wrote:But he's probably a paid shill of big business and oil companies. Just like me0 -
Advertisement
-
The First Global Revolution is out of print, but there's a pdf here. The famous quote is on p.75
This quote is very popular on all those recycled conspiracy blogs, which just seem to copy each other's accepted truths based mainly on internet rumours, while urging their critics to 'do your research'. If you read it in context you'll see that "Global Governance" is clearly differentiated from "Global Government".
Here's the complete quote with the omissions inserted in bold.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a human threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
How sinister does it read now?
Having clearly defined a previous usage of 'enemy' as referring to environmental problems, the 'humanity as enemy' comment is then added as a counterpoint to the argument. This selective quoting would award you a fail in an undergraduate essay.rigormortis wrote: »I have done plenty of research. You dont have to look very far to come to the correct conclusions. I tend to look at the overall picture, who benefits from these global warming claims?
How about this for evidence;
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ...
All these dangers are caused by human intervention
and it is only through changed attitudes and
behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]0
Advertisement