Greens enemies of liberty

auerillo

taconnol wrote: »

Your connections or experiences with Africa are irrelevant. Stop going off on tangents. Please don't be so hypocritical as to complain about being accused of things that are untrue.

I agree, which is why I madethe point as I was not sure why you were talking about having lived in the third world, as if that gave you a monopoly on having opinions regarding it.

taconnol wrote: »

Our food system IS unsustainable. My original analogy explained quite clearly how the whole system is seriously dependent at every stage on oil. Oil is a finite source. I can't really make it more simple than that. Ah yes, so you're expecting the magical technical bullet will come along and save us. Nothing new there. God forbid WE change.

Of course we have to change all the time and man would not have progressed to the stage we have if we did not have the ability to change. I agree oil in a finite resource. Where we disagree is that, because oil is a finite resource, I don't think that definitely means our food system is unsustainable. It may be, or we may find another means of transport. Only time will tell.

taconnol wrote: »

Edit: "Better choice and value"? Is your idea of a sustainable food system is one that flies kiwis from New Zealand and Pumpkins from Peru because we're so pampered, we can't just live with seasonal food, as we did for thousands of years? Seriously, people need to stop thinking that everything that has been done in the last century is somehow inherently good. Blind faith in progress is a large part of what's wrong with this world.

I'm with you on this one and I rarely buy food which out of season, unless its frozen, like frozen peas, for example. (My particular favourite are beans from kenya, which often cause a moral dilemma as they have lots of airmiles, but they are also going to support Kenyan farmers who need our money. I never end up buying them because i think its stupid flying beans from kenya). We have beef from Botswana and Brazil, and even at this stage 80% of the worlds cut flowers from from Kenya. Even all the oil we use has to travel large distances to get to us!

I am a libertarian and believe that if people want to buy kiwi fruit and cut flowers and pineapples and oranges and lemons, then they should be free to do so. I think to ban anything other than local seasonal food might be boring if we were to rigidly enforce that. For instance, from where would we get the lemon for our gin and tonic? And does that mean that we could no longer export guinness made in ireland, and the locals elsewhere be made to drink only their local beer, because we have to transport guinness to, say, New Zealand, just as they export their Kiwi's to us?

auerillo

I can't help noticing that there was no reply to my post, where I expressed surprise that taconnol was advocating that we only eat locally produced foods. In fact he seemed t be advocating that all the worlds people should only eat locally produced food and, inter alia, that food exports would then become a thing of the past. This would mean no guinness outside ireland, no more exports of kerrygold butter and so, on, and would also mean we would no longer be able to have lemon in our gin and tonics. Superficially, it may be an attractive idea, but it would also mean job losses as ireland, as a big food exporter, would be hard hit.

I think thats the problem I have with many approaches to a "solution" for global warming. So much of it is not properly thought through or, while it si superficially attractive, is impractical or just plain wrong.

For instance, there is a group called the "Polar Defence project" ( http://polardefenseproject.org/ ). Recently they made a big hullabaloo and organsied a publicity stunt where two individuals said they were going to kyack as far north as they could, to get as close to the north pole, to highlinght how thin the ice had become.

Unfortunately, they ( and their diesel powered back up ship!! - you have to laugh at the irony) had to turn back due to .... the ice being too thick! Indeed they still claim the ice is getting thinner and in "rapid decline" and its all hysterical hyperbole from them. (No doubt its all good for fundraising, but that's just the way my wicked mind works!)

In fact, as the site run by Anthony Watts http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/polar-defense-project-deletes-the-tough-questions/ points out, (a respected american meterologist), in 1922 Eskimos were canoing much further north. So much for the "Polar Defense Project" who just blithely ignore that evidence, and keep shouting louder and louder that the ice is getting thinner than ever before and catastrophe looms. CAtastrophe seemed to be averted in 1922, but thats inconvenient so they ignore it, and they still claim to have kyaked further north than anyone ever has before, even though they have been shown the evidence that that is not correct.

Maybe there really is a problem and we are getting warmer, although the University of Alabama, which boasts one of the 4 recognised sources of temperature data, has analysed the latest NASA satellite readings and has concluded that August 2008 was the 4th month in 2008 where temperatures fell below a 30 year average ( which is when satellite recordings began).

Macha

I didn't reply because I felt I had already adequately put across my points of view on the matter. You agreed with some, didn't with others, that was it.

I didn't say people just eat ONLY Irish food. I see this as a big problem with my arguments. I say something, another person takes it to the extreme and then points out how extreme that point of view is - classic strawman argument. What I did say was that yes, people should stop eating so much imported food.

For example, I just spent the morning picking blackberries and will be making a crumble with them later. The sugar I will be using will not even be from Europe but the flour and butter and oats well, plus of course the blackberries will be Irish. Now compare the ecological footprint of this dish, with someone who went to Tesco, bought 2 punnets of blackberries from Holland, butter, flour and oats from the UK with the same sugar. Less carbon, less packaging and more support for the local economy!

Your are right about reduced global trading as probably being bad for the economy but the whole point of sustainable development is that we also have to consider the social and environmental effects of our actions. You've just done the usual thing of saying "Oh but its bad for the economy so don't do it". I just need to talk to a member of the government to hear that shpiel.

And I'm female. Grr..

auerillo

taconnol wrote: »

I didn't reply because I felt I had already adequately put across my points of view on the matter. You agreed with some, didn't with others, that was it.

I didn't say people just eat ONLY Irish food. I see this as a big problem with my arguments. I say something, another person takes it to the extreme and then points out how extreme that point of view is - classic strawman argument. What I did say was that yes, people should stop eating so much imported food.

For example, I just spent the morning picking blackberries and will be making a crumble with them later. The sugar I will be using will not even be from Europe but the flour and butter and oats well, plus of course the blackberries will be Irish. Now compare the ecological footprint of this dish, with someone who went to Tesco, bought 2 punnets of blackberries from Holland, butter, flour and oats from the UK with the same sugar. Less carbon, less packaging and more support for the local economy!

Your are right about reduced global trading as probably being bad for the economy but the whole point of sustainable development is that we also have to consider the social and environmental effects of our actions. You've just done the usual thing of saying "Oh but its bad for the economy so don't do it". I just need to talk to a member of the government to hear that shpiel.

And I'm female. Grr..

I'm afraid I have no idea what a strawman is. is it aa term of abuse or endearment? I suspect the former.

It's easy to say what you don't like and how dreadful it is currently. Its more difficult to actually propose how to change it in a way which works. For me thats largely the problem with the green issues thread discussions,. in that its full of people saying how wicked and wasteful we are, but very few of them have workable sulutions.

Macha

auerillo wrote: »

I'm afraid I have no idea what a strawman is. is it aa term of abuse or endearment? I suspect the former.

It's easy to say what you don't like and how dreadful it is currently. Its more difficult to actually propose how to change it in a way which works. For me thats largely the problem with the green issues thread discussions,. in that its full of people saying how wicked and wasteful we are, but very few of them have workable sulutions.

Please don't add laziness to your list of attributes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Workable solutions:

-pedestrianize central sections of urban areas
-provide parking close to these areas
-remove on-street parking
-double the number of locations to park bikes
-introduce cycling lessons in transition year
-improve orbital public transport so that it is possible to go from one suburb to another without going through the centre.
-block off some of the superfluous exits on the M50 so that it is actually used for its original purpose: non-local traffic.
-build properly sized apartments, that are decent sizes for families
-provide sufficient public facilities for these apartment dwellers, for example parks, childrens play areas, sports facilities.
-improve the road surfaces and keep the crap off the roads (ie glass swept into the cycle lanes)
-when a new area is being developed, invest in District heating
-make people more aware of where their food comes from
-Educate kids, starting in schools about issues such as recycling, etc
-change all public bins to multiple fraction bins so that more can be recycled
-set up RVMS (reverse vending machines) that are very effective in encouraging household recycling.
-increase the walkability of housing estates.
-bring in an obligatory annual check for septic tanks
-introduce a carbon tax
-introduce water charges, starting with a very low price for initial standard amounts, but rising rapidly after that.
-move Dublin port to Balbriggan where there are rail facitiles
-move freight off trucks and onto rail
-remove electricity grid obstacles to alternative sources of generation
-re-open closed rail lines for freight and passenger trains.
-stop spending the majority of the money earmarked in the NDP for transport on roads, instead of public transport and rail.

Jeez that is just want comes off the top of my head.

I just remembered another reason why I didn't reply - you pick and choose what you want to reply to and never actually address any of the points other posters make. Waste of time!

auerillo

taconnol wrote: »

Workable solutions:

-pedestrianize central sections of urban areas
-provide parking close to these areas
-remove on-street parking
-double the number of locations to park bikes
-introduce cycling lessons in transition year
-improve orbital public transport so that it is possible to go from one suburb to another without going through the centre.
-block off some of the superfluous exits on the M50 so that it is actually used for its original purpose: non-local traffic.
-build properly sized apartments, that are decent sizes for families
-provide sufficient public facilities for these apartment dwellers, for example parks, childrens play areas, sports facilities.
-improve the road surfaces and keep the crap off the roads (ie glass swept into the cycle lanes)
-when a new area is being developed, invest in District heating
-make people more aware of where their food comes from
-Educate kids, starting in schools about issues such as recycling, etc
-change all public bins to multiple fraction bins so that more can be recycled
-set up RVMS (reverse vending machines) that are very effective in encouraging household recycling.
-increase the walkability of housing estates.
-bring in an obligatory annual check for septic tanks
-introduce a carbon tax
-introduce water charges, starting with a very low price for initial standard amounts, but rising rapidly after that.
-move Dublin port to Balbriggan where there are rail facitiles
-move freight off trucks and onto rail
-remove electricity grid obstacles to alternative sources of generation
-re-open closed rail lines for freight and passenger trains.
-stop spending the majority of the money earmarked in the NDP for transport on roads, instead of public transport and rail.

Jeez that is just want comes off the top of my head.

I just remembered another reason why I didn't reply - you pick and choose what you want to reply to and never actually address any of the points other posters make. Waste of time!

I guess I was wondering about workable solutions to the problem of global warming. You seem to have come up with a list which makes suggestions to a different problem. How will " build properly sized apartments", for example, have any bearing on global warming? A list isn't an argument.

Have you an explanation as to why temperatures are not rising?

Macha

auerillo wrote: »

I guess I was wondering about workable solutions to the problem of global warming. You seem to have come up with a list which makes suggestions to a different problem. How will " build properly sized apartments", for example, have any bearing on global warming? A list isn't an argument.

OK you know what? This is my last post in response to you because really, you've just betrayed your own ignorance about sustainability issues. In addition, you have, quite possibly, the worst and most annoying arguing skills of anyone in this forum. You ask for workable measures. I give you workable options, so you complain that I didn't create an argument and that none of my actions have any impact on climate change. I'm going to explain the one you pointed out:

Properly sized apartments are a good idea and solve many problems that aren't in any way related to climate change. But just on climate change: by their very nature, apartments have fewer external walls and thus are easier to heat, reducing energy bills. There is also the element of shared heat, whereby the heat from one apartment will seep into adjacent apartments.

Well sized apartments also remove the need that growing families feel to move to larger residences (normally less energy-efficient houses) in the suburbs. This, in turn, leads to increased private car-use. Finally, the increased density of residential areas improves the walkability of these areas and increases the viability of public transport, two factors that can reduce private car-use.

And in dealing with the effects of climate change, apartments are better than urban sprawl because they result in less land cover conversion to impermeable surfaces.

You need to stop looking at things in isolation and see them as connected. A solution that can address climate change can also address other issues.

On your temperature question, I suggest you stop calling it global warming and instead, use the phrase climate change. It might help you stop simplifying the issue.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

I can't help noticing that there was no reply to my post...

I can't help noticing that you ignore most posts that question your own contributions.

auerillo wrote: »

In fact, as the site run by Anthony Watts http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/polar-defense-project-deletes-the-tough-questions/ points out, (a respected american meterologist), in 1922 Eskimos were canoing much further north.

So some anecdotal evidence form 1922 (that's four years before the first successful expedition to The North Pole) proves that the Arctic is not currently melting?

auerillo wrote: »

Have you an explanation as to why temperatures are not rising?

Aren't they?

Pgibson

"Greens enemies of Liberty" sounds like something you would hear coming from the mouth of a gun-toting bible waving redneck from the back end of the American Deep South.(Some of whom are scientists.)

Utterly Un-European and......Comical.

.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

Please don't add laziness to your list of attributes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Workable solutions:

-pedestrianize central sections of urban areas
-provide parking close to these areas
-remove on-street parking
-double the number of locations to park bikes
-introduce cycling lessons in transition year
-improve orbital public transport so that it is possible to go from one suburb to another without going through the centre.
-block off some of the superfluous exits on the M50 so that it is actually used for its original purpose: non-local traffic.
-build properly sized apartments, that are decent sizes for families
-provide sufficient public facilities for these apartment dwellers, for example parks, childrens play areas, sports facilities.
-improve the road surfaces and keep the crap off the roads (ie glass swept into the cycle lanes)
-when a new area is being developed, invest in District heating
-make people more aware of where their food comes from
-Educate kids, starting in schools about issues such as recycling, etc
-change all public bins to multiple fraction bins so that more can be recycled
-set up RVMS (reverse vending machines) that are very effective in encouraging household recycling.
-increase the walkability of housing estates.
-bring in an obligatory annual check for septic tanks
-introduce a carbon tax
-introduce water charges, starting with a very low price for initial standard amounts, but rising rapidly after that.
-move Dublin port to Balbriggan where there are rail facitiles
-move freight off trucks and onto rail
-remove electricity grid obstacles to alternative sources of generation
-re-open closed rail lines for freight and passenger trains.
-stop spending the majority of the money earmarked in the NDP for transport on roads, instead of public transport and rail.

Jeez that is just want comes off the top of my head.

I just remembered another reason why I didn't reply - you pick and choose what you want to reply to and never actually address any of the points other posters make. Waste of time!

pretty good list for off the top of your head, the only things I would argue would be

-introduce water charges,
and
-block off some of the superfluous exits on the M50 so that it is actually used for its original purpose: non-local traffic.

the reasons I would give for this is that the water we drink isnt filtered as we all know for free. I know you know this and Im not being smart, its just important that we highlight that and if we pay water charges then we must reduce taxes elsewhere (all theoretical of course). I think a paper trail is important here.

Also re the M50. I would argue that due to the expansion of the city during the past 10 plus years that a new outer ring road would be needed to properly take non local traffic away. How about we take a leaf from the Western Australians and build a 4 lanes in each direction highway with train lines in the middle and seperate bike lanes.

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

So some anecdotal evidence form 1922 (that's four years before the first successful expedition to The North Pole) proves that the Arctic is not currently melting?
Aren't they?

Perhaps it is melting at an alarming rate. The example I gave was more to highlight that the organisation styling itself the Polar Defence project seems more interested in highlighting itself rather than coming up with evidence, certainly in the example I gave.

Again, according to the example I gave, no, they aren't.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

the reasons I would give for this is that the water we drink isnt filtered as we all know for free. I know you know this and Im not being smart, its just important that we highlight that and if we pay water charges then we must reduce taxes elsewhere (all theoretical of course). I think a paper trail is important here.

Also re the M50. I would argue that due to the expansion of the city during the past 10 plus years that a new outer ring road would be needed to properly take non local traffic away. How about we take a leaf from the Western Australians and build a 4 lanes in each direction highway with train lines in the middle and seperate bike lanes.

Ok I appreciate the aversion to double taxation

I disagree on the M50. At what stage, then, do we stop building roads? We have practised the philospophy of "predict and provide", copying the americans, since the early 1990s and where has it gotten us? More cars, more pollution, more traffic jams. Traffic is not like a liquid, it's like a gas. It's not a question of displacing it, if you remove the area it has to move around it will shrink. Fortunately, the government has decided not to increase road capacity within the M50 - thank god.

No, the reason the M50 doesn't work, apart from all the bad urban planning, urban sprawl blah blah, is that every developer got the exit he wanted close to his land and so the M50 is used for local traffic. The really annoying thing is that they encountered these problems with the M25 in the UK 20 years ago. But we have to make the same mistake 20 years later. We have ridiculously low population densities - how do other countries like the Netherlands survive without these continuous orbital rings? I mean where do we stop? In 20 years, we build another and another??

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

Perhaps it is melting at an alarming rate.

There's no 'perhaps' about it:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/19/20071001_septembertrend.png

auerillo wrote: »

Again, according to the example I gave, no, they aren't.

Sorry, which example was this?

ChocolateSauce

taconnol wrote: »

Ok I appreciate the aversion to double taxation

I disagree on the M50. At what stage, then, do we stop building roads? We have practised the philospophy of "predict and provide", copying the americans, since the early 1990s and where has it gotten us? More cars, more pollution, more traffic jams. Traffic is not like a liquid, it's like a gas. It's not a question of displacing it, if you remove the area it has to move around it will shrink. Fortunately, the government has decided not to increase road capacity within the M50 - thank god.

No, the reason the M50 doesn't work, apart from all the bad urban planning, urban sprawl blah blah, is that every developer got the exit he wanted close to his land and so the M50 is used for local traffic. The really annoying thing is that they encountered these problems with the M25 in the UK 20 years ago. But we have to make the same mistake 20 years later. We have ridiculously low population densities - how do other countries like the Netherlands survive without these continuous orbital rings? I mean where do we stop? In 20 years, we build another and another??

The M50 needs more exits, not less. It's insane to have a road that long with so few exists. American roads are the best in the world and they have exits all over the place. Also, Dublin is densely populated, and the M50 exists only in Dublin, ergo your population density argument doesn't hold. The Netherlands is very densely populated, and unlike Ireland they also have international through-traffic. They do have roads like you imiagine they don't-bigger and better than the M50.

It should have been 4 lanes on each side from the start.

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The M50 needs more exits, not less. It's insane to have a road that long with so few exists. American roads are the best in the world and they have exits all over the place. Also, Dublin is densely populated, and the M50 exists only in Dublin, ergo your population density argument doesn't hold. The Netherlands is very densely populated, and unlike Ireland they also have international through-traffic. They do have roads like you imiagine they don't-bigger and better than the M50.

It should have been 4 lanes on each side from the start.

You're right that it should have been 4 lanes from each side. But I think you're missing the point of a motorway. It is so that transit traffic can by-pass a built-up urban area. Put on too many exits and local-traffic starts using it, cue: traffic jams.

The M50 was not supposed to be used for local people in Dublin going from Sandyford to Dundrum, but those are the sort of trips that are making up most of the usage. The worst thing that could happen would be more exits on the M50.

Dublin is not densely populated. We come 80th out of a global ranking of 125 cities: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

And dear lord, I hope you're not holding up the mess that is the US road system as something to aspire to. A lot of roads does not = a good road system. It's a bit more complicated than that.

auerillo

taconnol wrote: »

You're right that it should have been 4 lanes from each side. But I think you're missing the point of a motorway. It is so that transit traffic can by-pass a built-up urban area. Put on too many exits and local-traffic starts using it, cue: traffic jams.

The M50 was not supposed to be used for local people in Dublin going from Sandyford to Dundrum, but those are the sort of trips that are making up most of the usage. The worst thing that could happen would be more exits on the M50.

Dublin is not densely populated. We come 80th out of a global ranking of 125 cities: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

And dear lord, I hope you're not holding up the mess that is the US road system as something to aspire to. A lot of roads does not = a good road system. It's a bit more complicated than that.

I think we have to realise that the M50 is not really a motorway at all, and is more like the main street of Dublin in 2008, just as O'Connell street was in 1950.

It may well be that it wasn't originally intended for short journeys, but in the 30 or so years it took to plan it, Dublin changed and, if the quickest way from Dundrum to Sandyford is on the M50, why should individuals choose to take a longer route, with traffic, traffic lights etc etc.

Thats not to speculate that the emissions of a car doing 5 minutes on a motorway between sandyfors and dundrum are, probably, far less than a car taking perhaps 25 minutes on a slower route.

Macha

auerillo wrote: »

I think we have to realise that the M50 is not really a motorway at all, and is more like the main street of Dublin in 2008, just as O'Connell street was in 1950.

It may well be that it wasn't originally intended for short journeys, but in the 30 or so years it took to plan it, Dublin changed and, if the quickest way from Dundrum to Sandyford is on the M50, why should individuals choose to take a longer route, with traffic, traffic lights etc etc.

Thats not to speculate that the emissions of a car doing 5 minutes on a motorway between sandyfors and dundrum are, probably, far less than a car taking perhaps 25 minutes on a slower route.

Hey, I'm not blaming the people who use it. People are people and if you put too many exits on a motorway, local traffic will start using it. The blame lies with the government and any relevant planning authorities, not with the people using it.

Húrin

auerillo wrote: »

Lol. that's one of the funniest posts I have read on this issue and appears to confirm that view that those for whom climate change belief has replaced religious belief, climate change is seen as a means of introducing socialism and draconian population control by the back door.

As a Christian who is also a climate campaigner, your claims are laughable.

There's a lot more evidence in your post to suggest that industrial capitalism has replaced religious belief in the minds of yourself and many others.

Pgibson

Húrin wrote: »

There's a lot more evidence in your post to suggest that industrial capitalism has replaced religious belief in the minds of yourself and many others.

That's very funny.

Move over Father Ted.

I myself worship the famous "Bull on Wall Street" (Representing the Bull Market.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Charging_Bull_at_Bowling_Green_060621.jpg

(He's a bit angry at the moment...He's left Wall Street in Tatters.)

.

ChocolateSauce

taconnol wrote: »

You're right that it should have been 4 lanes from each side. But I think you're missing the point of a motorway. It is so that transit traffic can by-pass a built-up urban area. Put on too many exits and local-traffic starts using it, cue: traffic jams.

The M50 was not supposed to be used for local people in Dublin going from Sandyford to Dundrum, but those are the sort of trips that are making up most of the usage. The worst thing that could happen would be more exits on the M50.

Dublin is not densely populated. We come 80th out of a global ranking of 125 cities: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

And dear lord, I hope you're not holding up the mess that is the US road system as something to aspire to. A lot of roads does not = a good road system. It's a bit more complicated than that.

I'll have to disagree about the American roads. I can only speak for the California road system personally, but it is extremely good. Having motorways run through cities is of critical importance for removing traffic from cities. Berlin also has a similar layout- dual carriageways are everywhere and they funnel traffic into motorways. This way if you have a person wanting to get from Dundrum to Tallaght, they use the motorway instead of making a ratrun through residential areas. It is the layout of the city and the dfficulty in making motorways that make it unviable in Dublin to a large extent; in the places where it is done properly, it provides an extraordinarily good system of roads.

The point of the M50 may have been to bypass Dublin, but the point of a motorway in general is to take traffic off small roads. If it were feasible, I'd support an 8 lane motorway that ran from Graystones to Swords in a straight line with exits every mile. I was shocked myself when I first saw the roads of Germany and California, but I was so impressed with their logical and practical value that I was envious of them.

Regarding Dublin density, I was comparing it to the Irish countryside.

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'll have to disagree about the American roads. I can only speak for the California road system personally, but it is extremely good. Having motorways run through cities is of critical importance for removing traffic from cities.

Cars and trucks cause traffic congestion. Not lack of motorways. Get rid of most of the former and you won't need the latter.