Climate Change Bill

mgmt

The Greens are staying in government to launch a kamikaze attack on the remnants of the Irish economy. This climate change bill will ruin us. They want to bring us back to the economic output levels of 1990. AGW is a scam of the highest order. Has the Greens asked the Sun what temperature the Earth is supposed to be?



http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees30thdail/j-climate_change/reports_2008/20101015.pdf

meglome

mgmt wrote: »

The Greens are staying in government to launch a kamikaze attack on the remnants of the Irish economy. This climate change bill will ruin us. They want to bring us back to the economic output levels of 1990. AGW is a scam of the highest order. Has the Greens asked the Sun what temperature the Earth is supposed to be?



http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees30thdail/j-climate_change/reports_2008/20101015.pdf

So let's see...

The chairman of the committee Dinny McGinley... evil Green... no wait a member of Fine Gael. A big thanks you to Liz McManus... evil green... no wait Labour.

In fact of the whole committee...
Dinny McGinley TD (FG)
Bobby Aylward TD (FF)
Joe Behan TD (IND)
Simon Coveney TD (FG)
Andrew Doyle TD (FG)
Martin Ferris TD (SF)
Michael Fitzpatrick TD (FF) (Vice‐Chairman)
Seán Fleming TD (FF)
Phil Hogan TD (FG)
Finian McGrath TD (IND)
Liz McManus (LAB)
Trevor Sargent (GP)
Mary Wallace (FF)
Paudie Coffey (FG)
Fiona O’Malley (PD)
Ned O’Sullivan (FF)
Joe O’Toole (IND)

...there is one Green party member. Will those evil 'Greens' ever stop.

barrackali

mgmt wrote: »

The Greens are staying in government to launch a kamikaze attack on the remnants of the Irish economy. This climate change bill will ruin us. They want to bring us back to the economic output levels of 1990. AGW is a scam of the highest order. Has the Greens asked the Sun what temperature the Earth is supposed to be?



http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees30thdail/j-climate_change/reports_2008/20101015.pdf

Even though I think the Greens have been a disaster in government, I do think you might be slightly over overreacting.

mgmt

meglome wrote: »

So let's see...

The chairman of the committee Dinny McGinley... evil Green... no wait a member of Fine Gael. A big thanks you to Liz McManus... evil green... no wait Labour.

In fact of the whole committee...
Dinny McGinley TD (FG)
Bobby Aylward TD (FF)
Joe Behan TD (IND)
Simon Coveney TD (FG)
Andrew Doyle TD (FG)
Martin Ferris TD (SF)
Michael Fitzpatrick TD (FF) (Vice‐Chairman)
Seán Fleming TD (FF)
Phil Hogan TD (FG)
Finian McGrath TD (IND)
Liz McManus (LAB)
Trevor Sargent (GP)
Mary Wallace (FF)
Paudie Coffey (FG)
Fiona O’Malley (PD)
Ned O’Sullivan (FF)
Joe O’Toole (IND)

...there is one Green party member. Will those evil 'Greens' ever stop.

The greens are keeping the government up just to pass this.

mgmt

barrackali wrote: »

Even though I think the Greens have been a disaster in government, I do think you might be slightly over overreacting.

NO.

How am I overreacting when the government places a bull**** tax on a natural gas?

spank_inferno

mgmt wrote: »

They want to bring us back to the economic output levels of 1990.

At best this comment is misleading.... I consider it a trolling lie.
And I think you know very well OP that this is not the case.

The bills aims are to reduce CO2 output to 1990 levels, not economic output.

Economic output will still rise if we just do things a little bit greener.
That goes for all levels of economic production.

If implemented it is unlikely to dampen economic output at all

Nice try at the scaremongering though :rolleyes:

mgmt

spank_inferno wrote: »

At best this comment is misleading.... I consider it a trolling lie.
And I think you know very well OP that this is not the case.

The bills aims are to reduce CO2 output to 1990 levels, not economic output.

Economic output will still rise if we just do things a little bit greener.
That goes for all levels of economic production.

If implemented it is unlikely to dampen economic output at all

Nice try at the scaremongering though :rolleyes:

CO2 emissions results from the production of goods. This climate change bill will place carbon restrictions and taxes, thereby reducing the level of economic output.

ei.sdraob

spank_inferno wrote: »

Economic output will still rise if we just do things a little bit greener.

and how do "we" know that? now that we are skint and any money coming in is costing ~7%?

spank_inferno wrote: »

If implemented it is unlikely to dampen economic output at all

says who? this guy?

spank_inferno wrote: »

Nice try at the scaremongering though :rolleyes:

Aint that what all the global warming (sorry climate change) arguments center about?

scaremongering people with a biblical end of the world scenario??

Ironically with less people around if climate change does kill most humans as promised it will end up being better for the planet :P

spank_inferno

EI.... your normally very on the ball.

I'm not going to trawl for stats etc... but you know they are there.

Real climate change may not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen.

If reducing our co2 output now helps alleviate this, then I've no real problem with it.


And to the OP, cutting co2 consumption may affect economic output if your smelting iron or something but in the vast majority of cases this doesn't have to be the case.
The company I work for (telecoms multinational) committed to & achieved a cut in co2 consumption of 30% on 2008 levels.
They achieved that target earlier in the year & in doing so considerably reduced operating costs costs, so despite a drop in revenues due to the recession the company was still very profitable.

Plus, a bill that will have cross party support is not a Green party plot to our way of life!

flutered

farting in the far east does a lot more damage to the enviroment than the irish ecomomy each day, which is not even factoring in their heavy industery, in ireland cows farting do more damage than most of our industery.

mgmt

spank_inferno wrote: »

EI.... your normally very on the ball.

I'm not going to trawl for stats etc... but you know they are there.

Real climate change may not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen.

If reducing our co2 output now helps alleviate this, then I've no real problem with it.

The climate changes naturally.

And to the OP, cutting co2 consumption may affect economic output if your smelting iron or something but in the vast majority of cases this doesn't have to be the case.
The company I work for (telecoms multinational) committed to & achieved a cut in co2 consumption of 30% on 2008 levels.
They achieved that target earlier in the year & in doing so considerably reduced operating costs costs, so despite a drop in revenues due to the recession the company was still very profitable.

Yeah, will telecoms multinational continue to locate here if the cost of running their sever rooms go through the roof?

Plus, a bill that will have cross party support is not a Green party plot to our way of life!

Tell that to the people who are being 'de-energised' because of rising energy bill due to carbon levies and taxes. Or the people who can't afford the car they want because of carbon emission taxes.

mgmt

flutered wrote: »

farting in the far east does a lot more damage to the enviroment than the irish ecomomy each day, which is not even factoring in their heavy industery, in ireland cows farting do more damage than most of our industery.

John Gormley wants you to be a patriot and stop exhaling CO2.

ei.sdraob

spank_inferno wrote: »

EI.... your normally very on the ball.

I'm not going to trawl for stats etc... but you know they are there.

Real climate change may not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen.

If reducing our co2 output now helps alleviate this, then I've no real problem with it.


And to the OP, cutting co2 consumption may affect economic output if your smelting iron or something but in the vast majority of cases this doesn't have to be the case.
The company I work for (telecoms multinational) committed to & achieved a cut in co2 consumption of 30% on 2008 levels.
They achieved that target earlier in the year & in doing so considerably reduced operating costs costs, so despite a drop in revenues due to the recession the company was still very profitable.

Plus, a bill that will have cross party support is not a Green party plot to our way of life!

Whether climate change occurs or not (another topic altogether)

Do I need to keep pointing at the big elephant in the room with "IMF/EU" tattoed on its side

Our country has no money left, we have been setback 2 decades easily, and if you strip away all the assets bought on debt then this country is even poorer.
Developing countries are exempt from carbon scam, we should be exempt too until we get back on our feet since we are now a developing retarding country

Anyways the whole carbon targets thing is a joke in a world where the largest polluter USA is ignoring it and concentrating on creating jobs for its citizens (something our politicians dont care about! they rather spend valuable time on dog beeding bills and build refuges in wicklow)
and of course the second largest polluter China are claiming that they are "developing"


By pushing ahead with all these targets and taxation now the Greens are setting up the stage for a huge anti- Green backlash, its hard for people to believe in global warming (spend time thinking about) when they unemployed and are freezing at home due to fuels being more expensive


Fix the economy first, this bill will set back the election we need so much by another month

mgmt

ei.sdraob wrote: »

By pushing ahead with all these targets and taxation now the Greens are setting up the stage for a huge anti- Green backlash, its hard for people to believe in global warming (spend time thinking about) when they unemployed and are freezing at home due to fuels being more expensive


Fix the economy first, this bill will set back the election we need so much by another month

Exactly, we cannot afford this stupidity right now. We need the greatest economic growth possible to repay this IMF/EU loan. But with this self-imposed trade tariff, we are effectively shooting ourselves in the foot and the country will remain on its knees.

NSNO

I hate this attitude that life must be put on hold simply because of our current financial difficulties. Yes it's a difficult time and yes many people are struggling deeply but life, and legislation, must go on.

In 50 years time, these economic difficulties will have been forgotten. However, unless we legislate properly and with consensus on a national plan for dealing with climate change and energy security we will be unprepared for a crisis which will make our current one look like small fry.

We will get through these difficulties, regardless of whether we have a general election in February or March.

RockMan94

but we have to make a drastic change look at our recent weather

NSNO

RockMan94 wrote: »

but we have to make a drastic change look at our recent weather

Surely legislating for Climate Change means that you legislate for measures that will stop our climate changing in a long-term way that would be detrimental to our environment? Not legislating simply because we've have a very cold winter?

Climate deals with averages in a range of meteorological elements over a period of around 30 years. We need to legislate to prevent our actions having a significant effect on them.

You having a knee-jerk reaction to our current bad weather is as bad as mgmt having a knee-jerk reaction to the current financial difficulties.

Ren2k7

mgmt wrote: »

The Greens are staying in government to launch a kamikaze attack on the remnants of the Irish economy. This climate change bill will ruin us. They want to bring us back to the economic output levels of 1990. AGW is a scam of the highest order. Has the Greens asked the Sun what temperature the Earth is supposed to be?



http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees30thdail/j-climate_change/reports_2008/20101015.pdf

This rant is more deserving of a place in CT, not here in politics. Climate change has been established as a proven fact time and again on so many occasions so move on.

By dealing with this important issue now we can avoid the consequences later on.

ei.sdraob

NSNO wrote: »

I hate this attitude that life must be put on hold simply because of our current financial difficulties. Yes it's a difficult time and yes many people are struggling deeply but life, and legislation, must go on.

In 50 years time, these economic difficulties will have been forgotten. However, unless we legislate properly and with consensus on a national plan for dealing with climate change and energy security we will be unprepared for a crisis which will make our current one look like small fry.

We will get through these difficulties, regardless of whether we have a general election in February or March.

You lost your job, your wife lost her job, your kids are hungry, there is no dole and the only money you can get is from the local loan shark at high interest

do you

a. take care of your family and try get back on your feet
b. borrow money at high interest and insulate your home

Ren2k7 wrote: »

By dealing with this important issue now we can avoid the consequences later on.

we can not afford to deal with this issue now, this will ensure the economy is even more uncompetitive while the likes of China continue to build a new coal plant every week making all our efforts pointless

a state borrowing from IMF should be looking after its people first and foremost, dont come here moaning that the government is not doing anything about unemployment, this bill would ensure even less employment as more business move.

mgmt

RockMan94 wrote: »

but we have to make a drastic change look at our recent weather

Weather does not equal climate.

mgmt

NSNO wrote: »

I hate this attitude that life must be put on hold simply because of our current financial difficulties. Yes it's a difficult time and yes many people are struggling deeply but life, and legislation, must go on.

In 50 years time, these economic difficulties will have been forgotten. However, unless we legislate properly and with consensus on a national plan for dealing with climate change and energy security we will be unprepared for a crisis which will make our current one look like small fry.

We will get through these difficulties, regardless of whether we have a general election in February or March.

This country is experiencing the disease of mass emigration again. In 50 years time these people will return home to die, not to focking see if the country has dealt effectively with climate change.

djpbarry

mgmt wrote: »

We need the greatest economic growth possible to repay this IMF/EU loan.

And economic growth can only be achieved by burning as great a mass of (imported) fossil fuels as possible?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You lost your job, your wife lost her job, your kids are hungry, there is no dole and the only money you can get is from the local loan shark at high interest

do you

a. take care of your family and try get back on your feet
b. borrow money at high interest and insulate your home

c. Close doors after you’ve left rooms, turn off lights when rooms are not in use, turn off appliances, etc.

ei.sdraob

djpbarry wrote: »

c. Close doors after you’ve left rooms, turn off lights when rooms are not in use, turn off appliances, etc.

that will not feed your children

what we are doing now is borrowing money at high interest from the local loan shark (IMF) since the wife (piblic sector) doesnt want to loose some weight or cares much for the children (welfare)
whats worse we turn around and are handing hundreds of millions of this borrowed money to wind industry, who are not state run

its madness

djpbarry

ei.sdraob wrote: »

that will not feed your children

Trying to keep the energy bills to a minimum won't help feed the children?

ei.sdraob

djpbarry wrote: »

Trying to keep the energy bills to a minimum won't help feed the children?

but thats not what the government is doing :rolleyes:



we are borrowing money at ~7% from the loan shark (IMF) only to give a few hundred million of this a year to the wind industry/lobby
at a time when we are closing hospitals and cutting welfare (and not dealing with public paybill)
thats craziness
on top of that as added insult everyone (business or private) pays more for electricity in order to subsidise wind which is not capable of competing on price and reliability, this impacts consumers who face higher prices and business who can not compete due to high energy costs

the "green" policies are already costing the economy money at a time when there is none and jobs at a time when we need them

Mr.Micro

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the "green" policies are already costing the economy money at a time when there is none and jobs at a time when we need them

Its like putting the brakes on the economy after it has become a wreck?

EastTexas

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Whether climate change occurs or not (another topic altogether)

Do I need to keep pointing at the big elephant in the room with "IMF/EU" tattoed on its side

Our country has no money left, we have been setback 2 decades easily, and if you strip away all the assets bought on debt then this country is even poorer.
Developing countries are exempt from carbon scam, we should be exempt too until we get back on our feet since we are now a developing retarding country

Anyways the whole carbon targets thing is a joke in a world where the largest polluter USA is ignoring it and concentrating on creating jobs for its citizens (something our politicians dont care about! they rather spend valuable time on dog beeding bills and build refuges in wicklow)
and of course the second largest polluter China are claiming that they are "developing"


By pushing ahead with all these targets and taxation now the Greens are setting up the stage for a huge anti- Green backlash, its hard for people to believe in global warming (spend time thinking about) when they unemployed and are freezing at home due to fuels being more expensive


Fix the economy first, this bill will set back the election we need so much by another month

Very well said.
Turning emissions into a commodity is totally insane and the European carbon market demonstrates it.
The credits are in fact highly leveraged debt, premised on a future change nobody can assure - the only people who benefit are Goldman Sachs, Corporate greed and the climate alumni and the bureaucrats implementing this lunacy.


It’s nothing more but a tax scam masquerading as environmental policies where big corporations are given a free ride and the regular citizen/ small business are held to impossible standards, penalized, charged and exploited with political correctness.

What could be more ironic than people freezing in their homes because of alleged global warming?
If Obama only touches on Cap and Trade again, he will not get a second term.

RichieC

Just leave this here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc


cant figure out how to embedd.

EastTexas

RichieC wrote: »

Just leave this here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc


cant figure out how to embedd.

The climate has changed since the inception of the planet and will continue to do just that.
Taxing climate is like taxing water because it’s wet.

djpbarry

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but thats not what the government is doing

I didn’t say this was what the government are doing. Alls I’m saying is maximising energy efficiency, within budgetary constraints, doesn’t strike me as a bad idea, whether we’re talking about a household or a country.

djpbarry

EastTexas wrote: »

The climate has changed since the inception of the planet and will continue to do just that.

We shouldn’t try and understand why the climate is changing?

RichieC

EastTexas wrote: »

The climate has changed since the inception of the planet and will continue to do just that.
Taxing climate is like taxing water because it’s wet.

I'm sorry but you're just wrong. Though deniers are always there in these threads to stifle reasonable debate on the topic, I suppose I shouldn't let it annoy me.

I believe this is a serious political forum so you're pointing to outlandish conspiracy theory's involving thousands of climatologists worldwide is quite laughable.

nesf

EastTexas wrote: »

The climate has changed since the inception of the planet and will continue to do just that.
Taxing climate is like taxing water because it’s wet.

Indeed, by the same logic let's get rid of hospitals! Sure we as a race have had a low life expectancy since pretty much we appeared on the face of the planet why try to change things!

EastTexas

Just for arguments sake, if man made global warming where not a tax scam.
Tiny little Ireland would not make a hoot of difference, even if every man woman and child drove a Hummer and heated they homes to their hearts delight with reasonably priced energy.
Talk about having your priorities horses ass backwards.
Political correctness does not create jobs, neither does the personal misery of being cold or without independent transportation to make your life happen.
This is not the time to play climate hoopla.
IMHO they should declare Ireland a “climate free zone” for the next 5 years to help with the economy and then reevaluate.
More science will have come to light by then, and the truth just like cream has way of rising to the top.

djpbarry

EastTexas wrote: »

Tiny little Ireland would not make a hoot of difference...

If Ireland positioned itself as a world-leading model of efficiency (for example), you don’t think anyone would take notice?

EastTexas wrote: »

IMHO they should declare Ireland a “climate free zone” for the next 5 years to help with the economy and then reevaluate.
More science will have come to light by then, and the truth just like cream has way of rising to the top.

All the scientific evidence in the world will not convince certain individuals that mankind is capable of having an adverse effect on the environment. Some people just don’t want to accept it as it would entail being a little more selfless.

EastTexas

This disturbing ad launched by one of the climate groups provides a very telling insight into their mentality and to which lengths they are willing go with fear mongering and intimidation.
They no longer use the ad after much public outcry, but that does not mitigate that they made it and published it to serve their purposes.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a7e_1286142183

RichieC

EastTexas wrote: »

This disturbing ad launched by one of the climate groups provides a very telling insight into their mentality and to which lengths they are willing go with fear mongering and intimidation.
They no longer use the ad after much public outcry, but that does not mitigate that they made it and published it to serve their purposes.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a7e_1286142183

Oh that is nothing compared to this doozy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAA2sLtzXJM

EastTexas

djpbarry wrote: »

If Ireland positioned itself as a world-leading model of efficiency (for example), you don’t think anyone would take notice?
All the scientific evidence in the world will not convince certain individuals that mankind is capable of having an adverse effect on the environment. Some people just don’t want to accept it as it would entail being a little more selfless.

This would beg the question:
What are your priorities in these economically trying times?
The admiration of foreign climate elites and carbon merchants or the well being of your people and country at this point in time?
You can’t eat admiration.

On your science point.
That is rather debatable and depends who you listen to.
Given there is much more money these days in the “ right” opinion for scientists, almost regardless what they study as long there is some favorable climate angle included.
But despite that, dissenting voices from the science community are increasing.
Not to be glib, but I predict MMGW will go the way of the pet rock eventually, especially once the money incentive is removed.
It is almost shameful how much money is pumped into the climate lobby especially with so many genuine environmental issues neglected and under funded.

nesf

EastTexas wrote: »

This would beg the question:
What are your priorities in these economically trying times?
The admiration of foreign climate elites and carbon merchants or the well being of your people and country at this point in time?
You can’t eat admiration.

Please don't argue using false dilemmas, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

EastTexas

nesf wrote: »

Please don't argue using false dilemmas, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Actually in a country in such dire financial straights it is mutually exclusive.
There is only finite amount of money at a hefty interest rate.
What are you going to spend it on?
Your people and the economy or on impressing some dudes in the UN.

Ask the average Irish person if they want to pay climate taxes to help WalMart gain access to natural resources in third world nations at cut rate prices.
That’s right; WalMart was in Cancun this years in support of MMGW securing their piece of the cake.

djpbarry

EastTexas wrote: »

This disturbing ad launched by one of the climate groups provides a very telling insight into their mentality and to which lengths they are willing go with fear mongering and intimidation.
They no longer use the ad after much public outcry, but that does not mitigate that they made it and published it to serve their purposes.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a7e_1286142183

Here’s a nonsense video about swine flu:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfV9GpRUz6A

Influenza is obviously not a real problem.

EastTexas wrote: »

This would beg the question:
What are your priorities in these economically trying times?
The admiration of foreign climate elites and carbon merchants or the well being of your people and country at this point in time?

See nesf’s post above.

EastTexas wrote: »

Given there is much more money these days in the “ right” opinion for scientists, almost regardless what they study as long there is some favorable climate angle included.

I’ll let Andrew Dessler take this one:

First, consider that the scientific community has been saying for several years that our understanding of the climate system is quite good. Not perfect, mind you, but good enough that many scientists feel we should be taking action now to reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions. Based on the strength of this conclusion, many politicians have started saying "the science is settled."
Does that sound like a recipe for getting lots of research funding? Saying that we have a pretty good understanding of the climate system?
In fact, it should be obvious that the scientific community would be better off saying we're not sure that climate change is caused by humans: "It might be human-induced, but it might not be. What we really need is more money for models, satellites, and analysis." I can imagine a bipartisan groundswell of support for massive funding of climate science. That's the way to maximize funding. You don't say that the science is settled. You say it's unsettled.
And what would happen if the scientific community said definitively that humans were not to blame? I don't think funding would go down much, for the following reason. The climate is still warming, and if it is not human, then what is it? Obviously, we need to do a lot of research to figure out what is driving the climate, and how the climate will evolve over the next century. Enormous amounts of research on geoengineering and adaptation will be necessary, regardless of whether the cause is human.
So, it doesn't appear that the scientific community has done itself any favors by concluding that humans are responsible for climate change.

http://www.grist.org/article/show-me-the-money1

EastTexas wrote: »

It is almost shameful how much money is pumped into the climate lobby especially with so many genuine environmental issues neglected and under funded.

You don’t think the anti-AGW lobby are pumping far more money into studies in an attempt to discredit the AGW theory?

EastTexas

djpbarry wrote: »

We shouldn’t try and understand why the climate is changing?

Of course, science is an ongoing ever evolving process.
Which is precisely why the tactic of “ The debate is over” is so incredibility disingenuous, contrary and in conflict with science.

djpbarry

EastTexas wrote: »

Of course, science is an ongoing ever evolving process.
Which is precisely why the tactic of “ The debate is over” is so incredibility disingenuous, contrary and in conflict with science.

I see.

There seems to be little debate within the scientific community on whether or not smoking is bad for you. I guess the "smoking is bad" lobby are being heavily funded to produce the "correct" results and stifle debate on the subject.

EastTexas

djpbarry wrote: »

I see.

There seems to be little debate within the scientific community on whether or not smoking is bad for you. I guess the "smoking is bad" lobby are being heavily funded to produce the "correct" results and stifle debate on the subject.

Smoking? Lol
With all due respect, now you are conflating and changing the subject.


The majority of greenhouse gases is water vapor.
Are we going to find a reason to tax that too?
Co2 though a natural greenhouse gas is a tiny percentage and our/ human contribution is even more miniscule.
Without greenhouse gases we wouldn’t have an atmosphere or a livable planet.
Branding Co2 akin to a poison is one hell of a marketing scheme.

Mind you, environmentally unsound pollution and co2 is not the same thing but frequently put in the same bag to confuse.
I am in favor of diverse, renewable and cleaner energy.
Oil will run out eventually and all those wars and global conflicts suck, but disagree the way the climate lobby is going about it and object to their self serving agenda of corporate greed.
Besides we use more oil for global food production and many other things than for personal transportation.
So by simply sticking it to the little guy, who had no say so to begin with in energy choices for his home and car is not the way to go.

I understand the states need money and are looking for inventive ways to get it, but that dog won’t hunt.

djpbarry

EastTexas wrote: »

Smoking? Lol
With all due respect, now you are conflating and changing the subject.

No I’m not. You are suggesting that, with regard to climate science research, there is more funding available to those who produce the “right” results (while producing zero evidence to support such a suggestion, I might add), which has resulted in a lack of debate on the subject in the scientific community. Why aren’t you drawing the same conclusions about smoking? Or evolution? Or any other topic on which the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement? A lack of debate does not necessarily suggest that a debate is being suppressed. Maybe there just is no debate?

gizmo555

mgmt wrote: »

Yeah, will telecoms multinational continue to locate here if the cost of running their sever rooms go through the roof?

In point of fact, many high-tech companies such as Google are locating their data centres here precisely to save on energy costs. The temperate climate here means they save a fortune on air-conditioning costs. This has the potential to be a very important niche market for Ireland in seeking FDI. See, for example, this piece in the Indo last yearn for more detail:

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/ireland-has-the-potential-to-become-the-worlds-green-datacentre-capital-1940429.html

According to Dermot O'Connell, general manager of Dell Ireland, the level of sophistication of many of these data centres in terms of use of green technology is impressive.

"Climate is a vital component. If many of these data centres were located in hotter climates they would be expensive to cool and spending on electricity would be much higher. Many providers are working on creating the equivalent of an Energy Star rating for data centres that will help businesses decide where to put their data."

EastTexas

djpbarry wrote: »

No I’m not. You are suggesting that, with regard to climate science research, there is more funding available to those who produce the “right” results (while producing zero evidence to support such a suggestion, I might add), which has resulted in a lack of debate on the subject in the scientific community. Why aren’t you drawing the same conclusions about smoking? Or evolution? Or any other topic on which the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement? A lack of debate does not necessarily suggest that a debate is being suppressed. Maybe there just is no debate?

Because this is conflating unrelated issues and unrelated (or barley related with evolution) sciences.
Straying far of topic.
Not just the merits or lack thereof in regards to global climate politics but also …
“Is this really the time and place for costly climate politics in lieu of Ireland’s many economic challenges? “

Yes funding/grants are easier and more plentiful available to those injecting a “favorable” climate angle into their studies even if mostly unrelated to climate.
And you don’t have to worry about the scrutiny of the political correctness squad.

nesf

EastTexas wrote: »

Actually in a country in such dire financial straights it is mutually exclusive.
There is only finite amount of money at a hefty interest rate.
What are you going to spend it on?
Your people and the economy or on impressing some dudes in the UN.

Ask the average Irish person if they want to pay climate taxes to help WalMart gain access to natural resources in third world nations at cut rate prices.
That’s right; WalMart was in Cancun this years in support of MMGW securing their piece of the cake.

You're assuming that any climate change legislation will necessitate taking funding away from other areas. You haven't shown this to be true, ergo the false dilemma being presented. Climate taxes don't cost us money they generate money for the State and reduce the amount we have to borrow. So really I do not think you understand what you are saying here!

nesf

EastTexas wrote: »

Smoking? Lol
With all due respect, now you are conflating and changing the subject.

No he is not. He is arguing from analogy which is a perfectly useful debating tool.

Seriously, less of the rhetoric and more substantive points please.

EastTexas

nesf wrote: »

No he is not. He is arguing from analogy which is a perfectly useful debating tool.

Seriously, less of the rhetoric and more substantive points please.

Na sorry, I am not going to debate smoking (a medical/ health issue) on the climate/economic thread.
Why not inject Chinese Noodles too?

EastTexas

nesf wrote: »

You're assuming that any climate change legislation will necessitate taking funding away from other areas. You haven't shown this to be true, ergo the false dilemma being presented. Climate taxes don't cost us money they generate money for the State and reduce the amount we have to borrow. So really I do not think you understand what you are saying here!

Oh this most certainly will cost you at the pump and affect your other energy costs besides stifling business/ employers.

But much of that also depends on your ideology.
If you believe that your current government will handle your higher tax payer contributions better than it has done in the past.
Better than you ever could, rather then hanging on to that/your money and choosing what to allocate that to according to your personal needs.
Then by all means.
In fact you could even go further and additionally donate to them if you have that much faith in that process.
Under those circumstances any taxes regardless how frivolous would be great.