People jaded by 'Green' issues

Húrin

Flyer1 wrote: »

Tell me this, what " change " do -you- feel is necessary ? I'm a reasonable guy, i'm so fed up of all these green taxes I have lost any interest I have had in going green.

I don't think that you understand. The ecological crises are going to catch up with us whether we are interested in 'going green' or not. All we can do is make its effects as painless as possible, and the sooner we as a civilisation act, the better.

Macha

Húrin wrote: »

What is wrong with this? In my garden I can grow most of the vegetables I need, which is pretty green in my book. Ireland is different, culturally, from Scandinavia. It is not a case that we need to be civilised to be more like Scandinavia - as many Danes, Swedes and Norwegians seem to think.

While as a cyclist I would love to see Ireland embrace the bike more, Dublin is not the death trap it's usually made out to be. Besides, Sweden is equally, if not more of a car-dependent country than Ireland.

I cannot accept the idea that Sweden is a more car-dependent country than Ireland. The simple fact is that the Irish use their cars more than anyone else in the world, when measured on a per-capita basis. More, even than the Americans.

Why? Because we have failed to implement traffic demand management measures and instead, since the start of the boom in the 1990s, we have instead allowed developers to build sloppy, sprawling housing estates, far from facilities, shops and places of employment. In addition, we have embraced one-off housing in rural areas, thus contributing to spread out development. Lower density development is notoriously difficult to service with public transport as populations are spread out over greater distances and fewer passengers to pick up on each route. Cue: lowered viability and increased private car-based transport.

It is important to note that this does not only impact negatively on the environment, but is also socially exclusive to the young, elderly, infirm and those who simply cannot afford to buy a car. In addition, in this era of increasingly expensive oil (for whatever reason), it is increasingly financially unviable, as well as just plain inefficient, for people to rely so heavily on private car-based transport. It just doesn't make sense. I haven't even started talking about the enormous cost of building roads to the taxpayer or issues surrounding parking! Also, I would point out that it is very expensive to bring services out to these areas. The higher the density, the more cost-effective it is for the local authority to connect residential and other areas to electricity, water, sewage, etc.

I commend you on the use of your garden to grow food. But you must agree that you are in a small minority, although admittedly I have zero stats to back that up. just an opinion. Instead there is actually a trend of people covering over their front or back gardens with impermeable surfaces, such as concrete - a phenomenon that can have serious implications for flooding, and has sparked off John Gormely to the idea of banning this practice.

I agree that Dublin isn't the death trap that people use as their lame excuse not to get on a bike. However, cycling facilities are shockingly bad

-lack of places to park the bike
-zero maintenance of cycling lanes
-the right to park in a cycle lane with a broken line for 30minutes (what is the point??)
-zero enforcement of the ban on parking in cycle lanes
-awful, awful quality of road surfaces
-lack of services to clean up the crap off the roads - in fact, often this mess is swept into the cycle lane.
-cycle lanes that cease to exist at 7pm (along with all the cyclists :rolleyes:)
-combining cycle and bus lanes (whoever thought this was a good idea should be taken out and shot),
-general disregard of other road users for the cycle lane (used by motor cycle & scooter users & generally ignored by many drivers, "what? Oh, you have your blinkers on, sure then its fine to park there")
I could go on and on...

It's nothing to do with being more or less civilised, it's about putting collective interests before individual interests.

Húrin

taconnol wrote: »

I cannot accept the idea that Sweden is a more car-dependent country than Ireland. The simple fact is that the Irish use their cars more than anyone else in the world, when measured on a per-capita basis. More, even than the Americans.

Why? Because we have failed to implement traffic demand management measures and instead, since the start of the boom in the 1990s, we have instead allowed developers to build sloppy, sprawling housing estates, far from facilities, shops and places of employment. In addition, we have embraced one-off housing in rural areas, thus contributing to spread out development. Lower density development is notoriously difficult to service with public transport as populations are spread out over greater distances and fewer passengers to pick up on each route. Cue: lowered viability and increased private car-based transport.

It is important to note that this does not only impact negatively on the environment, but is also socially exclusive to the young, elderly, infirm and those who simply cannot afford to buy a car. In addition, in this era of increasingly expensive oil (for whatever reason), it is increasingly financially unviable, as well as just plain inefficient, for people to rely so heavily on private car-based transport. It just doesn't make sense. I haven't even started talking about the enormous cost of building roads to the taxpayer or issues surrounding parking! Also, I would point out that it is very expensive to bring services out to these areas. The higher the density, the more cost-effective it is for the local authority to connect residential and other areas to electricity, water, sewage, etc.

I commend you on the use of your garden to grow food. But you must agree that you are in a small minority, although admittedly I have zero stats to back that up. just an opinion. Instead there is actually a trend of people covering over their front or back gardens with impermeable surfaces, such as concrete - a phenomenon that can have serious implications for flooding, and has sparked off John Gormely to the idea of banning this practice.

I agree that Dublin isn't the death trap that people use as their lame excuse not to get on a bike. However, cycling facilities are shockingly bad

-lack of places to park the bike
-zero maintenance of cycling lanes
-the right to park in a cycle lane with a broken line for 30minutes (what is the point??)
-zero enforcement of the ban on parking in cycle lanes
-awful, awful quality of road surfaces
-lack of services to clean up the crap off the roads - in fact, often this mess is swept into the cycle lane.
-cycle lanes that cease to exist at 7pm (along with all the cyclists :rolleyes:)
-combining cycle and bus lanes (whoever thought this was a good idea should be taken out and shot),
-general disregard of other road users for the cycle lane (used by motor cycle & scooter users & generally ignored by many drivers, "what? Oh, you have your blinkers on, sure then its fine to park there")
I could go on and on...

It's nothing to do with being more or less civilised, it's about putting collective interests before individual interests.

"It all seems a bit contradictory, but this [Sweden] is a country that is even more in thrall to the car than Britain. The local shop is extinct almost everywhere: if you want a litre of milk or a pack of nappies you need to drive to a supermarket. Smaller communities may have a store selling hot dogs and a few daily necessities, but these are always based around the petrol station – seemingly the focal point for modern village life."

Mark Lynas, a man who knows a thing or two about environmental issues. Right, I know he didn't directly compare to Ireland, but with the epic railway closures of the last 40 years, the expansion of motorways and out-of-town superstores in Britain, I think the two islands are comparable in car dependence.

http://www.marklynas.org/2007/10/14/the-environmental-utopia-up-to-a-point

You really shouldn't have assumed that I didn't know all the stuff you wrote about. I know that planning in Dublin barely exists. I have lived here all my life. I am involved in the Dublin Cycling Campaign.

I view car-driving at the levels it has risen to in Dublin as being anti-social, and I particularly despise how dangerous it has become for children here. I welcome high fuel prices for this reason.

I have cycled here for the later half of my life. I only consider Dame St and Westmoreland St as places to avoid at all cost on bike. I know that cycle facilities have been mostly placed for show rather than to be used, furthermore, by people who never cycled in their lives.

I agree that food-growing is a minority practice. While higher density housing has the benefit of being easier to extend services to, has it not occurred to you that when oil becomes prohibitively expensive, and silver bullet technologies inevitably fail to materialise, Dublin's large amount of gardens will be an invaluable tool to save ourselves from food insecurity? How sustainable will the tower blocks of apartments look by then?

badabinbadaboom

taconnol wrote: »

I cannot accept the idea that Sweden is a more car-dependent country than Ireland. The simple fact is that the Irish use their cars more than anyone else in the world, when measured on a per-capita basis. More, even than the Americans.

Why? Because we have failed to implement traffic demand management measures and instead, since the start of the boom in the 1990s, we have instead allowed developers to build sloppy, sprawling housing estates, far from facilities, shops and places of employment. In addition, we have embraced one-off housing in rural areas, thus contributing to spread out development. Lower density development is notoriously difficult to service with public transport as populations are spread out over greater distances and fewer passengers to pick up on each route. Cue: lowered viability and increased private car-based transport.

It is important to note that this does not only impact negatively on the environment, but is also socially exclusive to the young, elderly, infirm and those who simply cannot afford to buy a car. In addition, in this era of increasingly expensive oil (for whatever reason), it is increasingly financially unviable, as well as just plain inefficient, for people to rely so heavily on private car-based transport. It just doesn't make sense. I haven't even started talking about the enormous cost of building roads to the taxpayer or issues surrounding parking! Also, I would point out that it is very expensive to bring services out to these areas. The higher the density, the more cost-effective it is for the local authority to connect residential and other areas to electricity, water, sewage, etc.

I commend you on the use of your garden to grow food. But you must agree that you are in a small minority, although admittedly I have zero stats to back that up. just an opinion. Instead there is actually a trend of people covering over their front or back gardens with impermeable surfaces, such as concrete - a phenomenon that can have serious implications for flooding, and has sparked off John Gormely to the idea of banning this practice.

I agree that Dublin isn't the death trap that people use as their lame excuse not to get on a bike. However, cycling facilities are shockingly bad

-lack of places to park the bike
-zero maintenance of cycling lanes
-the right to park in a cycle lane with a broken line for 30minutes (what is the point??)
-zero enforcement of the ban on parking in cycle lanes
-awful, awful quality of road surfaces
-lack of services to clean up the crap off the roads - in fact, often this mess is swept into the cycle lane.
-cycle lanes that cease to exist at 7pm (along with all the cyclists :rolleyes:)
-combining cycle and bus lanes (whoever thought this was a good idea should be taken out and shot),
-general disregard of other road users for the cycle lane (used by motor cycle & scooter users & generally ignored by many drivers, "what? Oh, you have your blinkers on, sure then its fine to park there")
I could go on and on...

It's nothing to do with being more or less civilised, it's about putting collective interests before individual interests.

I get the impression you want mass housing estates completley self contained?
If thats your idea then I agree it would make life easier, but people should have a right to live wherever they want.

badabinbadaboom

Sorry I only just see what you mean now!! Just appeared very Orwellian there for a minute

Macha

Húrin wrote: »

"It all seems a bit contradictory, but this [Sweden] is a country that is even more in thrall to the car than Britain. The local shop is extinct almost everywhere: if you want a litre of milk or a pack of nappies you need to drive to a supermarket. Smaller communities may have a store selling hot dogs and a few daily necessities, but these are always based around the petrol station – seemingly the focal point for modern village life."

Ok I'm sorry but having lived in Scandinavia the above just isn't true.There is a Kiwi supermarket at every t-bane station, and residential development is focused on these sort of transport hubs. I am not talking about rural areas - it is somewhat inevitable that private-car use will be higher in rural than urban areas. I am talking about urban areas, where we should have the critical mass to guarantee an excellent public tranport system.

Húrin wrote: »

Mark Lynas, a man who knows a thing or two about environmental issues. Right, I know he didn't directly compare to Ireland, but with the epic railway closures of the last 40 years, the expansion of motorways and out-of-town superstores in Britain, I think the two islands are comparable in car dependence.

http://www.marklynas.org/2007/10/14/the-environmental-utopia-up-to-a-point

There are a lot of people out there who know a thing or two about the environment. I listen to them & then go back to the facts.

The simple fact is that Irish people use their cars more than anyone else in the EU, and the rest of the world. Yes, there has been an expansion of motorways, but Sweden has in no way seen the sort of rail closures that Ireland has since the beginning of the 20th century. In 1920, Ireland had 5,600km of railway, now it is much less. Only 0.5% of our freight goes by rail. Our main port, Dublin port, does not have rail freight facilities. Ironically enought, Gothenberg, the city Lynas refers to actually has the proud title of having the most extensive tram network in Northern Europe.

So while I agree that Ireland is comparable with the UK in terms of transport policy, both of us are nowhere near Sweden.

Also, I think Lynas's article is a joke. It smacks of someone who is tired of coming 4th & has decided to get in a few digs at the person in 1st place. Sweden's use of CHP and district heating is a fantastic way of mazimising the energy gained from energy production. In Ireland, our energy generation is 35% efficient. CHP brings this up close to 100%. I appreciate that fossil fuel energy generation is not ideal and I totally accept his point, but the churlish way that he puts it across as if he's just scored one up against them is really off-putting.

I visited a city in Sweden called Vaxjo. The average annual C02 emissions per resident is below 3 tonnes. Ireland is currently at 17 tonnes. Would I have the audacity to sneer at them that they aren't at zero? No, it's just pathetic.

Húrin wrote: »

You really shouldn't have assumed that I didn't know all the stuff you wrote about. I know that planning in Dublin barely exists. I have lived here all my life. I am involved in the Dublin Cycling Campaign.

I didn't assume anything. I was putting across points, relevant to the argument not just for your personal viewing, but also anyone reading this thread. Boards is for public viewing..

No offense, but I don't have much regards for Dublin Cycling Campaign, although I was a member once.

Húrin wrote: »

I view car-driving at the levels it has risen to in Dublin as being anti-social, and I particularly despise how dangerous it has become for children here. I welcome high fuel prices for this reason.

I have cycled here for the later half of my life. I only consider Dame St and Westmoreland St as places to avoid at all cost on bike. I know that cycle facilities have been mostly placed for show rather than to be used, furthermore, by people who never cycled in their lives.

Yes, I totally agree with all of this, I hate cycling down Dame St. Plus the latest scheme by Dublin City Council with JC Delacroix is a joke!!

Húrin wrote: »

I agree that food-growing is a minority practice. While higher density housing has the benefit of being easier to extend services to, has it not occurred to you that when oil becomes prohibitively expensive, and silver bullet technologies inevitably fail to materialise, Dublin's large amount of gardens will be an invaluable tool to save ourselves from food insecurity? How sustainable will the tower blocks of apartments look by then?

Yes I'm aware of the benefits of Dublin's gardens but my issue with them is this: they are private gardens, totally dependent on the whim of the owner as to whether they will languish in weeds, be paved over, keep as an ornate interest or actually put to some good use.

What we fail to understand with high density urban design in Ireland, is that if people are to live in apartments, they need outdoor space as well. We have not provided sufficient leisure, park and outdoor facilities for apartment residents (never mind the fact that they are boxy little things). In Sweden, sufficient public outdoor spaces are provided, which can easily be converted into food-producing spaces if the need arises in the future.

As usual, there is a way of doing things & Ireland gets it wrong practically at every turn.

I think what turns alot of people away from the worthy green cause are things like mentioned in some posts in this thread like:

remarks against gardens, people like gardens, I like gardens !

Anti private transport, Private transport is freedom. Public transport is shockingly bad here and mismanaged, for day to day commuting we need to shift en masse to public but the private car is freedom lose sight of that fact and you lose support.

Anti short haul cheap flights. In a country that gets feck all sunshine where for nearly 9 months of the year if you work 9-5 indoors you wont see daylight people NEED a holiday. Its like banning comedy because of the co2 emissions from all related things like running a tv shipping dvds etc etc

we can choose the negative tax em to hell approach
or we do be positive:

planes can be run on bio kerosene
cars can run on electricity
and
whats wrong with gardens ffs

Macha

Blindjustice - I like gardens too but I accept the stark reality that it is not advisible that everyone gets their own private garden. I think I've outlined quite clearly why I hold this viewpoint. Reducing it down to a simple "I don't like gardens" is churlish. Again, I like cars and private transport but they have their place. Everyone uses their car and we all get stuck in traffic jams.

The concept that everyone can have exactly what they would like and everything will work fine is a concept that Ireland has put into practice over the past 15 years and we will be dealing with the consequences for a long, long time.

Public transport - I find an efficient, subsidised public transport more in line with my idea of freedom than any car. Yes public transport in Ireland is bad but it didn't have to be like this. But we chose we wanted our private cars and I hope everyone who spends hours in their car commuting every day enjoys their "freedom".

What I'm hearing from you is the usual "don't make me change, can't the men in the white coats just fix it?". It's nothing new.

Húrin

Deleted User wrote: »

I think what turns alot of people away from the worthy green cause are things like mentioned in some posts in this thread like:

remarks against gardens, people like gardens, I like gardens !

I do too and I think they will be a key tool in the oil-starved future, if used right.

Anti private transport, Private transport is freedom. Public transport is shockingly bad here and mismanaged, for day to day commuting we need to shift en masse to public but the private car is freedom lose sight of that fact and you lose support.

Hardly anti-private transport, I'm a cycling fanatic!

Anti short haul cheap flights. In a country that gets feck all sunshine where for nearly 9 months of the year if you work 9-5 indoors you wont see daylight people NEED a holiday.

We got on fine without holidays before. Elevating it to a need is superflouous. However, I accept and agree that holidays are good and desirable and I would hate to take them away. I like holidays. However, aviation is such a dangerous source of GHG emissions that it would be unjust to keep expanding it. Unjust on the billions who never get to fly or take holidays at all.

There are other ways of getting off this island if Connemara isn't good enough for you. You can get a ferry and train ticket to London for €41 for instance. You can get a ferry to France from Rosslare. Without aviation we would not be fecked by any means.

planes can be run on bio kerosene
cars can run on electricity

1. no they can't.
2. true, we will probably see more of this in the future. However, the manufacture of a car causes the emission of 35-50 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Also, I think that Ireland is at breaking point in terms of car use. It's now becoming very difficult because of the sheer volume of them.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

We got on fine without holidays before. Elevating it to a need is superflouous. However, I accept and agree that holidays are good and desirable and I would hate to take them away. I like holidays. However, aviation is such a dangerous source of GHG emissions that it would be unjust to keep expanding it. Unjust on the billions who never get to fly or take holidays at all.

There are other ways of getting off this island if Connemara isn't good enough for you. You can get a ferry and train ticket to London for €41 for instance. You can get a ferry to France from Rosslare. Without aviation we would not be fecked by any means.


1. no they can't.
2. true, we will probably see more of this in the future. However, the manufacture of a car causes the emission of 35-50 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Also, I think that Ireland is at breaking point in terms of car use. It's now becoming very difficult because of the sheer volume of them.

yeah agree about bikes, trains and ferries. The way of the future combined with bio kerosene
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=jet-fuel-from-algae-passes-first-te-2008-09-09
electric cars and renewable energy sources like solar wind and wave

Húrin

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah agree about bikes, trains and ferries. The way of the future combined with bio kerosene
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=jet-fuel-from-algae-passes-first-te-2008-09-09
electric cars and renewable energy sources like solar wind and wave

That's interesting. I hope it works for them. I still wouldn't fly though (due to the extreme nature of airport security.)

Húrin

taconnol wrote: »

I am not talking about rural areas - it is somewhat inevitable that private-car use will be higher in rural than urban areas.

It is possible that Lynas is talking about rural areas, or more likely outer suburbs. I should email him and ask.

The simple fact is that Irish people use their cars more than anyone else in the EU, and the rest of the world.

Even more than in the USA, where 15 year olds do driving tests?

Also, I think Lynas's article is a joke. It smacks of someone who is tired of coming 4th & has decided to get in a few digs at the person in 1st place.

I doubt it. He's no nationalist.

No offense, but I don't have much regards for Dublin Cycling Campaign, although I was a member once.

Personally I don't think they're radical enough, but what's your issue with them?

Yes, I totally agree with all of this, I hate cycling down Dame St. Plus the latest scheme by Dublin City Council with JC Decaux is a joke!!

I always cross the Liffey by Bridge St and Church St if going North, and often by Capel St and Parliament St if going south, and turning right after that. Anything further east is trouble.

Why is it a joke? The schemes in France show that it is making cycling more popular. People try out the public bikes a few times, then decide to buy their own when they find that they like cycling.

Yes I'm aware of the benefits of Dublin's gardens but my issue with them is this: they are private gardens, totally dependent on the whim of the owner as to whether they will languish in weeds, be paved over, keep as an ornate interest or actually put to some good use.

In a low oil future it will presumably be in everyone's interest to grow their own food.

In Sweden, sufficient public outdoor spaces are provided, which can easily be converted into food-producing spaces if the need arises in the future.

But who will work them, other than those with an interest in doing so? It seems like the same arrangement as private gardens, but with much worse security. (Security breaches and vandalism have been the downfall of many a community veg garden.)

As usual, there is a way of doing things & Ireland gets it wrong practically at every turn.

Provocative. There are many ways of doing things.

Macha

Húrin wrote: »

Even more than in the USA, where 15 year olds do driving tests?

Unfortunately, yes. I am referring to car use, not car ownership. We do have quite high levels of car ownership but we use them more than anyone else.

Húrin wrote: »

I doubt it. He's no nationalist.

Alright, fair enough.

Húrin wrote: »

Personally I don't think they're radical enough, but what's your issue with them?

Well, I obviously have no problem with the campaigns for awareness of obstacles facing Dublin's cyclists (being one myself). What I disagree with is their idea that cyclists should be separate from other traffic. For example, I don't know if you've seen the bollards at the bottom of O'Connell St that separate out the cyclists from the rest of the lanes - that was Dublin Cycling Campaign. I disagree completely with this approach and feel that cyclist should have their place on the roads, just like everyone else and should be respected (and act) like a fully legitimate road user. The idea of separating us out marks us out as different & I don't think its at all necessary.

Also, a recent study showed that drivers give cyclists less space when there is a cycle lane. Cycle lanes in DUblin are ignored anyway. I think we should just get rid of them.

Húrin wrote: »

Why is it a joke? The schemes in France show that it is making cycling more popular. People try out the public bikes a few times, then decide to buy their own when they find that they like cycling.

Ok it's a joke because
1) We are getting nowhere near as good a deal as Paris and other cities under the same scheme, in terms of the ratio of facilities: advertising space granted
2) The bikes aren't going to be delivered until 2009 but JC Decaux already have put up many of their billboards
3) Dublin city centre is already VERY tight on space (eg Dame St). You have 3 lanes of traffic for the lovely cars & buses, while people are crammed onto narrow pavement, squashed in, waiting at pedestrian lights. The situation is made even worse by Dublin City Council allowing pubs to put out terraces on public pavement (ie that hotel by the Foggy Dew - the pavement narrows down to about 1 foot across!). Can we really afford more street furniture, with no function, apart from advertising? (This is the reason the DTO opposed the scheme)
4) Many of the signs that have already been put up, have been placed in locations that are very dangerous to blind people and block the line of sight of drivers in relation to pedestrians and pedestrian lights. They have been forced to take some of them down.

Take a look:

http://www.dermotlacey.ie/blog/2008/07/erection-of-dangerous-jc-decaux-metropoles-must-be-suspended/

I mean look at this shoddy mess in comparison to Paris. We have serious problems in this country with just bending over backwards whenever a big multinational appears on the horizon. It's like we're some starry-eyed teenager that can't complete a sentence when in the presence of their favourite actor. It's pathetic the way we can't handle ourselves.

Húrin wrote: »

In a low oil future it will presumably be in everyone's interest to grow their own food.

Of course, but I'm afraid I don't have as much faith in human nature as you do. Even today, people don't do things that are in their own interest because its too much hassle, costs too much money, any reason you can think of.

Húrin wrote: »

But who will work them, other than those with an interest in doing so? It seems like the same arrangement as private gardens, but with much worse security. (Security breaches and vandalism have been the downfall of many a community veg garden.)

That is something that will have to be addressed if/when the time comes. The residents of the apartment block can join together. Apartment blocks do share common facilities today and deal with these issues today. It's not some new problem.. Security breaches and vandalism are also problems with private property.

Húrin wrote: »

Provocative. There are many ways of doing things.

Of course, but I think very few would argue with me when I say we had a chance to do something great with this country back in 1994 and we royally screwed the whole thing up. I mean in relation to urban design, public transport provision,water treatment, building regulations blah blah blah I could go on. These days I get more of shock when the government actually shows some long-term joined up thinking, rather than kowtowing to private interests and only being able to think as far ahead as the next election.

KhanTheMan

Its starting to sound like a bunch of Nazis in here at this point. Read what some of you are saying. Its like you want to control everyones habits but only as long as they dont conflict with your own.

If you want to do something environmentally friendly then go live beside your job and walk to work. Dont even waste the carbon it costs to make the bike you're cycling now. Dont tell others they cant live outside the city and have a garden unless you are prepared to go all the way and not just some of the way that suits yourself.

If you want to ask people not to fly, then go the whole way yourself and dont even get any transport that uses carbon. Walk to your holidays.

Jaysus, the thread is full of do what i say , not what i do here.

Macha

KhanTheMan - I do practice what I preach. I don't know why you think I don't

KhanTheMan

taconnol wrote: »

KhanTheMan - I do practice what I preach. I don't know why you think I don't

Wasnt aimed at you taconnel.

But in general i have these questions for those who are demanding that we all reduce our carbon footprint.

Do you walk everywhere? Do you never fly? Do you live in a tent? All these things will help reduce the carbon footprint of our country. And if its possible to reduce your carbon footprint still more, while you are preaching to others to reduce theirs, then you are a hipocrite.

If you really wanted to reduce the worlds carbon footprint then you would do these things and more.

Or do you just demand that others reduce their carbon footprint down to a level that you think they should because that is a level that you yourself are comfortable with. If you can demand that others change their lifestyles then you must be prepared to go further than you already do yourself.

I have a garden. I grow my food. I have a water butt, compost heap etc.
I am in the process of building a home-made solar heat collector which will feed solar heated air into my already operational aerothermal heat pump. I use puplic transport and walk, but i still have to drive 7 miles to a train station to get to work.

I do what i can, but i DONT pretend to be all righteous and tell other people that they MUST do what "i" consider to be neccesary for them to do. You can all always do more.

Macha

OK

Well, I would love for it to be the case that it is up to everyone to do as they see fit but unfortunately, other people's decision don't just affect them.

A guy putting in a faulty septic tank - he's allowed to do what he wants? Well..no, because then he is polluting another person's drinking water. I could give hundreds of other examples, but you see what I mean.

Of course, I don't advocate that people go live in a tent but at the same time, I think people these days have this impression that the way we live today is some sort of god-given right and that people have always lived like this. We haven't always lived like this and last time I checked, owning an SUV wasn't written into our constitution.

I would love that enough people, not even everyone, but enough people had the common sense to take the actions that you have. But unfortunately that just isn't human nature. And in my opinion, there are some things more important that an individual's freedom. Like biodiversity. Like sustainable energy, etc.

Now I'm not talking about freedom of speech, freedom to vote. No I'm talking about people screaming about their right to buy kiwis from new zealand.

Ok this is how I see it. At the moment, a lot of people's actions have long-term consequences, about which they are not aware and for which they do not pay. I'll take a non-carbon example to avoid that whole can of worms. So say we have a farmer who sprays his crops with pesticides. This act kills many insects, thus reducing biodiversity. This in turn has serious consequences for pollination (just see Germany's big panic this summer over their dropping bee populations..). Now, that farmer toddles off and the cost of the negative impact of his actions are not payed by him, but are externalised to the rest of society. How is that fair?

This is why I would be in favour of a carbon tax. If you really, really want to do all these polluting things, do them. But YOU are the one who is going to pay the cost of cleaning it up, no the exchequer.

That was totally rambly - hope it made sense!

BTW-I only fly when I have to (seriously, like obligatory college trip or family spending Xmas in Spain). I cycle everywhere, buy local, organic food with as little packaging as possible, have seriously reduced the amount of meat I eat, got a wormery for the apartment (no balcony-yuck!), recycle everything, have all eco-bulbs in the house, etc.

But I know that not everyone is going to do this and unfortunately, we are not in a position where people can carry on as they have for the past century. It's just not worth it - to us or future generations. I mean what will future generations think of us? We didn't do anything about it because we were too worried about infringing on people's rights to waste energy, natural resources and pump ridiculous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere?

I hate coming across as preachy but in the end, what is the other option? Running this planet into the ground? Anything is better than this, in my book. I want my children and grandchildren to live in a clean world, not one where everyone is running around screaming about their right to pollute.

To paraphrase Gandhi, there is enough in this world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed. We, in the West, are just greedy. And for me, the backlash against the environmental movement reminds me of a spoiled child whose just been told that she can't keep her expensive little toy.

KhanTheMan

taconnol wrote: »

OK

Well, I would love for it to be the case that it is up to everyone to do as they see fit but unfortunately, other people's decision don't just affect them.

A guy putting in a faulty septic tank - he's allowed to do what he wants? Well..no, because then he is polluting another person's drinking water. I could give hundreds of other examples, but you see what I mean.

Of course, I don't advocate that people go live in a tent but at the same time, I think people these days have this impression that the way we live today is some sort of god-given right and that people have always lived like this. We haven't always lived like this and last time I checked, owning an SUV wasn't written into our constitution.

I would love that enough people, not even everyone, but enough people had the common sense to take the actions that you have. But unfortunately that just isn't human nature. And in my opinion, there are some things more important that an individual's freedom. Like biodiversity. Like sustainable energy, etc.

Now I'm not talking about freedom of speech, freedom to vote. No I'm talking about people screaming about their right to buy kiwis from new zealand.

Ok this is how I see it. At the moment, a lot of people's actions have long-term consequences, about which they are not aware and for which they do not pay. I'll take a non-carbon example to avoid that whole can of worms. So say we have a farmer who sprays his crops with pesticides. This act kills many insects, thus reducing biodiversity. This in turn has serious consequences for pollination (just see Germany's big panic this summer over their dropping bee populations..). Now, that farmer toddles off and the cost of the negative impact of his actions are not payed by him, but are externalised to the rest of society. How is that fair?

This is why I would be in favour of a carbon tax. If you really, really want to do all these polluting things, do them. But YOU are the one who is going to pay the cost of cleaning it up, no the exchequer.

That was totally rambly - hope it made sense!

BTW-I only fly when I have to (seriously, like obligatory college trip or family spending Xmas in Spain). I cycle everywhere, buy local, organic food with as little packaging as possible, have seriously reduced the amount of meat I eat, got a wormery for the apartment (no balcony-yuck!), recycle everything, have all eco-bulbs in the house, etc.

But I know that not everyone is going to do this and unfortunately, we are not in a position where people can carry on as they have for the past century. It's just not worth it - to us or future generations. I mean what will future generations think of us? We didn't do anything about it because we were too worried about infringing on people's rights to waste energy, natural resources and pump ridiculous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere?

I hate coming across as preachy but in the end, what is the other option? Running this planet into the ground? Anything is better than this, in my book. I want my children and grandchildren to live in a clean world, not one where everyone is running around screaming about their right to pollute.

To paraphrase Gandhi, there is enough in this world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed. We, in the West, are just greedy. And for me, the backlash against the environmental movement reminds me of a spoiled child whose just been told that she can't keep her expensive little toy.

Its not written into the constitution that you live in an apartment or are allowed to cycle a bike (using rubber, steel etc - a carbon expensive little toy that you feel is your right to keep) either. My point is that the pain you would feel giving up the bike or the roof you have over your head now is equal to the pain of someone living in a different area giving up their car or their house with a garden, and yet people are willing to tell others what they should do and yet go no further themselves.

Macha

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Its not written into the constitution that you live in an apartment or are allowed to cycle a bike (using rubber, steel etc - a carbon expensive little toy that you feel is your right to keep) either. My point is that the pain you would feel giving up the bike or the roof you have over your head now is equal to the pain of someone living in a different area giving up their car or their house with a garden, and yet people are willing to tell others what they should do and yet go no further themselves.

As I said before, there is enough in the world for people's need but not their greed. I think owning a bike is well within the basic standard of living that it is possible for all persons to achieve in a sustainable manner.

And it's not like I have a problem with SOME people living in houses with gardens and big cars, but the problem here is that EVERYONE wants a house and a garden and a car and 5 annual holidays away and and and and...

I don't think its fair to equate someone losing their bike to someone losing their car. I appreciate that there are some people who are used to extravagant levels of living, but I don't have any particular sense of pity for these people. It's like the kids on MTV's Sweet Sixteen being sent to the Arctic Circle to see how other people live. If you live in such decadance that you cry if yous SUV is taken away from you, I'm not going to be crying along with you. Unfortunately, our society actually puts that sort of living up on a pedestal as if its what we should aim for, instead of acknowledging it for the ecological nightmare it is.

I mean, do you agree with what I wrote above? There are some things more important than upsetting some rich sod with too much money. Everything that I call for, both here and elsewhere, are all things that I either already do myself (ie take public transport, cycle, etc) or do not mind being subjected to (eg carbon tax). In this sense, no one can call me a hypocrite.

BigglesMcGee

taconnol wrote: »

As I said before, there is enough in the world for people's need but not their greed. I think owning a bike is well within the basic standard of living that it is possible for all persons to achieve in a sustainable manner.

And yet there you are. An opportunity to reduce your carbon footprint by walking instead of biking it, but its too hard for you to take it.

You could probably also get rid of the TV and move to the country and live off the land to reduce it more if you felt that strongly about the environment.

But yet its ok to tell others what to do.

taconnol wrote: »

And it's not like I have a problem with SOME people living in houses with gardens and big cars, but the problem here is that EVERYONE wants a house and a garden and a car and 5 annual holidays away and and and and...

And you want your bike and your apartment. Millions live without either. A step too far for you though.

taconnol wrote: »

I don't think its fair to equate someone losing their bike to someone losing their car.

Just pointing out that you are not going as far as you could to reduce your carbon footprint. You are however, expecting others to go as far as YOU want them to though.

taconnol wrote: »

I appreciate that there are some people who are used to extravagant levels of living, but I don't have any particular sense of pity for these people. It's like the kids on MTV's Sweet Sixteen being sent to the Arctic Circle to see how other people live. If you live in such decadance that you cry if yous SUV is taken away from you, I'm not going to be crying along with you. Unfortunately, our society actually puts that sort of living up on a pedestal as if its what we should aim for, instead of acknowledging it for the ecological nightmare it is.

Nobody asked for pity, they just want less bleeding heart bull form those who arent willing to go the extra mile from where they are at, when its entirely doable if it was really about reducing ones impact on the planet. Looking like its more about being able to tell others what to do though and take the perceived moral high ground.

taconnol wrote: »

I mean, do you agree with what I wrote above? There are some things more important than upsetting some rich sod with too much money. Everything that I call for, both here and elsewhere, are all things that I either already do myself (ie take public transport, cycle, etc) or do not mind being subjected to (eg carbon tax). In this sense, no one can call me a hypocrite.

Exactly. Things that you do yourself. But if someone who does more than you called for you to go further you're having none of it. You dont want your toys taken away from you either but are happy for those with more toys than you to lose theirs.


Dont get me wrong. Im not singling you out, and i believe everybody should do what they can. But I dont think its anyones place to be judge and jury on everyone else. We all facilitate emmissions of carbon into the atmosphere by watching TV, buying a bike, car. Using washing machines, fridges, freezers, heating our houses. Even taking public transport. If we really want the right to demand others lose their comforts then we should be willing to lose all of ours.

If we arent then we should just shut up and leave others alone.

Seth Brundle

djpbarry wrote: »

No, that's a disposal charge, not a tax.

If you are not disposing of anything then what kind of charge is it?

Húrin

KhanTheMan wrote: »

If you want to do something environmentally friendly then go live beside your job and walk to work. Dont even waste the carbon it costs to make the bike you're cycling now. Dont tell others they cant live outside the city and have a garden unless you are prepared to go all the way and not just some of the way that suits yourself.

If people tried to do this it would be pointless. We're all hooked on oil here. Individuals can't just easily break that unless all of society changes.

If you want to ask people not to fly, then go the whole way yourself and dont even get any transport that uses carbon. Walk to your holidays.

Hold on mate, how is it hypocritical to ask people not to fly, if you're not flying yourself?

KhanTheMan

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

And yet there you are. An opportunity to reduce your carbon footprint by walking instead of biking it, but its too hard for you to take it.

You could probably also get rid of the TV and move to the country and live off the land to reduce it more if you felt that strongly about the environment.

But yet its ok to tell others what to do.




And you want your bike and your apartment. Millions live without either. A step too far for you though.




Just pointing out that you are not going as far as you could to reduce your carbon footprint. You are however, expecting others to go as far as YOU want them to though.




Nobody asked for pity, they just want less bleeding heart bull form those who arent willing to go the extra mile from where they are at, when its entirely doable if it was really about reducing ones impact on the planet. Looking like its more about being able to tell others what to do though and take the perceived moral high ground.




Exactly. Things that you do yourself. But if someone who does more than you called for you to go further you're having none of it. You dont want your toys taken away from you either but are happy for those with more toys than you to lose theirs.


Dont get me wrong. Im not singling you out, and i believe everybody should do what they can. But I dont think its anyones place to be judge and jury on everyone else. We all facilitate emmissions of carbon into the atmosphere by watching TV, buying a bike, car. Using washing machines, fridges, freezers, heating our houses. Even taking public transport. If we really want the right to demand others lose their comforts then we should be willing to lose all of ours.

If we arent then we should just shut up and leave others alone.

Not exactly the point i was making Biggles, but close enough.

There are times when we should have to pay extra for something. But its easier to take advice from someone when you give an incentive, rather than a punishment for doing things that you are asked to do its a much easier pill to swallow from the person who is asking, especially if they are only asking as far as suiting themselves.

professore

KhanTheMan wrote: »

When exactly were you paying for rubbish collection when i wasnt?

Don't know about him but we have had bin charges in Cork for years before ye had them up there in "De Big Smooke"

professore

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Plastic bags, bin charges, soon to be water charges, motor tax, WEEE ............

Listen to the Green party. All they do now is suggest more taxation.

I'm not a Green freak, but I think we need some balance and fairness here as the vast majority of the problems we have are due to Fianna Fail. I agree that reducing the speed limit on motorways is probably their stupidest suggestion though.

Plastic bags was Micheal Martin (FF)
Motor Tax is now much lower for more environmentally friendly models thanks to the Greens.
WEEE is an EU directive
Water charges for water use above a certain amount would make sense and stop things like people using 540 litres of drinking water to water their garden.
http://www.uswitch.com/Water/How-Much-Water-Use.html

professore

KhanTheMan wrote: »

No, its not because car ownership is up. Look it up.

OP is right, Im jaded about green issues already.

So why is the tax take higher then? It must be because people are a.) buying gas guzzlers or b.) there are more cars on the road, or both. Plus the tax for secondhand cars went up last budget too, nothing to do with the Greens.

By the way the new motor tax system is a tax on idiots ... if you are stupid enough to buy a high emissions vehicle then you'll pay for it!

professore

ytareh wrote: »

And yes Im TOTALLY sick of all the Green pontificating too despite being generally pro recycling etc ...Human CO2 causing catastrophic climate change ?Rubbish !(Science graduate )We are within a decade of the nightmarish pay per mile (£1.43 propsed by the UK Govt just recently).Cars and plane travel will soon be for the wealthy only.

LOL ... I think you accidentally typed !( between "Rubbish" and "Science graduate".

professore

taconnol wrote: »

Yes I'm aware of the benefits of Dublin's gardens but my issue with them is this: they are private gardens, totally dependent on the whim of the owner as to whether they will languish in weeds, be paved over, keep as an ornate interest or actually put to some good use.

What we fail to understand with high density urban design in Ireland, is that if people are to live in apartments, they need outdoor space as well. We have not provided sufficient leisure, park and outdoor facilities for apartment residents (never mind the fact that they are boxy little things). In Sweden, sufficient public outdoor spaces are provided, which can easily be converted into food-producing spaces if the need arises in the future.

As usual, there is a way of doing things & Ireland gets it wrong practically at every turn.

Having lived in Belgium, I totally agree with your sentiments. The big problem is that apartments are built here for single transient people who will 'get on the property ladder' rather than for families renting long term.

with a straight face and being serious I want to ask this to those who suggest apartment living for most V the current situation:

What about alcohol? Should it be banned for human consumption? It is ALOT of fuel we drink every weekend and literally p*** away when with small modifications we could be churning out a bio fuel....


Remember when talking about cars and how bad they alot of why they are so bad is because we buy a new one every few years. Cars can last decades and can be modified to run on bio fuels.
Im all for better public transport but at the moment if I want to take my dog with me anywhere I MUST drive. Also apartment living means you cant have a dog. And whether or not people grow their own food now or not the garden is there for the future...
I had a half acre before I went back to college and I didnt grow vegetables (although I was planning on trying it out) and I agree that most people dont but I was growing apples, pears, gooseberries, strawberries, blackcurrants to name but a few! I also had two composters. Upon my return back to Dublin I learnt that doing the above is hard even with an average garden in an estate.
Also there was no recycling bins until recently!!!
To tannocol - while you dont trust people to do things for the environment I dont trust the govt to do it. We are similiar but different!

johnpauls

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5717/

Ethan has his finger on the green issues.Please read.:D