Hogan shifts policy on climate change as Bill 'not a priority'

BryanF

well thank you very much deputy Hogan, sounds like the lobbyist's had their way, under the mask of economic turmoil
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1103/1224306980840.html

joela

I'm actually so disgusted by the stupidity and shortsightedness that I can't even begin to comment properly on this. There are people out there lauding this, ordinary people delighted to see this and who don't want to see that longterm this will do nothing for anyone only the corrupt in our society.

Macha

Basically, he's going to give NESC a year to come up with a set of recommended climate change policies and then he'll think about implementing them. What a joke. Has anyone explained the key factor of cumulative emissions to him?

What a sop to agriculture as well. Why should they receive special dispensation?

Corsendonk

Macha wrote: »

Basically, he's going to give NESC a year to come up with a set of recommended climate change policies and then he'll think about implementing them. What a joke. Has anyone explained the key factor of cumulative emissions to him?

What a sop to agriculture as well. Why should they receive special dispensation?

Its the good news story of the Irish economy at the moment so FG can't be seen as hindering its growth. Good lobbying from the IFA.

Macha

Corsendonk wrote: »

Its the good news story of the Irish economy at the moment so FG can't be seen as hindering its growth. Good lobbying from the IFA.

Yes, sorry I suppose it was more of a rhetorical question.

The ties between FG & agriculture are well known but I don't think Phil Hogan even understands the impact that climate change will have on agriculture.

So far his headline environmental initiatives are about litter and battery recycling. The rest like water charges are due to outside influences like the EU/IMF MOU and the European Commission.

Grudaire

I was sickened when I heard this. He seems to be doing an absolutely terrible job between this decision and that decision on removing the indpendence of the planning enquiry.

It's sad that rather than accepting the fact that farming does cause a lot of emissions and working to manage our emissions better that he seems to want to ignore those emissions that get in our way :-\

BryanF

can someone explain to me why so much of this is about farming (dont tell me its about methane! that BS) (and we all know who voted for Hogan but)

surely the farming sector is a scape goat here. personally i don't see why the farming sector should suffer, if the real players effected here such as oil/gas, transport and heavy industry, along with construction were targeted effectively then could we leave the food sector alone?

BryanF

what if this NESC requested/ added a clause that for farmers to comtinue with their current protected status, they must incorporate a biogas/methane system, there by selling/using as fuel the very thing their being penalised for?

Macha

Well, agriculture accounts for 40% of the greenhouse emissions in Ireland's non-traded sector (ie everything outside the EU ETS). So it's a biggie.

I absolutely recognize that agriculture is important to Ireland's economy and is a tough area to reduce emissions. I'm perfectly happy for Hogan's proposed changes in calculations to take effect, if the same is done internationally. And if we want to do things in a least-cost manner, then it makes sense not to set sector-specific targets, or at least not directly proportional to the amount of emissions, er, emitted.

That doesn't mean agriculture should get off the hook entirely. And some initiatives would kill a few birds with the same stone. Anaerobic digestion, for example, would help cut down on farming emissions, create a source of dispatchable renewable energy in the form of biogas (and another form of income for the farmer) and help with the nitrates regulations.

easychair

While I can understand the disappointment of some to this decision, Ireland's contribution to greenhouse emissions is, on a world level, miniscule.

The whole green agenda was always more prominent when individuals had excess money to spend, and now that Ireland (and most of Europe) is broke, then it's entirely natural that more important issues should take precedence, at least for bankrupt governments.

Macha

Our economic situation is not really relevant. There is a cost to emitting carbon and the longer we take to reduce emissions, the higher and longer we will be paying that cost in the future.

It's short-termism that got us into the financial mess and the same attitude towards climate change means climate mess is going to make this crisis look like a walk in the park.

Judgement Day

easychair wrote: »

While I can understand the disappointment of some to this decision, Ireland's contribution to greenhouse emissions is, on a world level, miniscule.

The whole green agenda was always more prominent when individuals had excess money to spend, and now that Ireland (and most of Europe) is broke, then it's entirely natural that more important issues should take precedence, at least for bankrupt governments.

If Ireland adopts this hand wringing approach then it is no wonder nothing will improve. It's like saying there's so much litter on the street, I might as well add to it. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step....

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

While I can understand the disappointment of some to this decision, Ireland's contribution to greenhouse emissions is, on a world level, miniscule.

Per head of population, Ireland's emissions are among the highest in the world.

Corsendonk

What is the breakdown on Irish agriculture admissions?

Kristopherus

easychair wrote: »

While I can understand the disappointment of some to this decision, Ireland's contribution to greenhouse emissions is, on a world level, miniscule.

The whole green agenda was always more prominent when individuals had excess money to spend, and now that Ireland (and most of Europe) is broke, then it's entirely natural that more important issues should take precedence, at least for bankrupt governments.

Have to agree with you. Ireland is a dot on the western fringe of Europe. The total amount of emissions we allegedly produce is less than what Manchester produces. Of course the GB govt are hammering the Mancunians for emitting more than Ireland:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Get real, greenies. This country is f**ked financially and all you lot can do is moan :mad:about so-called emissions. Good riddance to Gormless & his ilk. We have no need of any additional green regulations. The Irish electorate gave a resounding NO to those kind of policies last February.

BryanF

Kristopherus wrote: »

Have to agree with you. Ireland is a dot on the western fringe of Europe. The total amount of emissions we allegedly produce is less than what Manchester produces. Of course the GB govt are hammering the Mancunians for emitting more than Ireland:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Get real, greenies. This country is f**ked financially and all you lot can do is moan :mad:about so-called emissions. Good riddance to Gormless & his ilk. We have no need of any additional green regulations. The Irish electorate gave a resounding NO to those kind of policies last February.

This CC bill was about sending a message. I don't believe the Irish public gave this 'no' in February, many of incoming TD's supported the bill at that time and were not that far from the green policy's at least when canvassing!
I reckon the benefits and opportunities to be gained from embracing the CC bill (btw its only marginal stricter that required by the EU) would have sent a strong message to investors of our governments intentions to cut Co2 emissions and spurred on the renewable energy market, as people looked for alternative ways to generate clean energy.

Macha

Kristopherus wrote: »

Have to agree with you. Ireland is a dot on the western fringe of Europe. The total amount of emissions we allegedly produce is less than what Manchester produces. Of course the GB govt are hammering the Mancunians for emitting more than Ireland:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Get real, greenies. This country is f**ked financially and all you lot can do is moan :mad:about so-called emissions. Good riddance to Gormless & his ilk. We have no need of any additional green regulations. The Irish electorate gave a resounding NO to those kind of policies last February.

[mod]Enough of the derogatory language towards environmentalists. Also, this isn't the Politics forum so you can take your Green Party bashing there.[/mod]

A climate change bill was in both Labour and FG manifestos and the Programme for Government. Moreover, the bill would simply provide an effective, transparent legislative framework for the implementation of targets that we already have to meet under our EU and Kyoto obligations.

As part of the largest economy in the world, ie the EU, I fail to see why our size matters. We already received special dispensation through burden-sharing among EU member states by being allowed to increase our emissions by 13% - instead we increased them by 26%.

Every country can argue its case to be let off based on the importance of X industry or slicing the data but at the end of the day, do you really think China and India are going to move if they see the EU sitting on its hands?

djpbarry

Kristopherus wrote: »

The total amount of emissions we allegedly produce is less than what Manchester produces.

I doubt that.

easychair

Macha wrote: »

Our economic situation is not really relevant. There is a cost to emitting carbon and the longer we take to reduce emissions, the higher and longer we will be paying that cost in the future.

It's short-termism that got us into the financial mess and the same attitude towards climate change means climate mess is going to make this crisis look like a walk in the park.

I can't agree that the economic situation isn't really relevant, and imagine a referendum in Ireland might well demonstrate that a lot of Irish citizens would show they don't agree with you.

My guess is that it is now more important is to be able to put bread on the table for most families, rather than worry about a rise in a couple of degrees in a hundred or so years time.

BryanF

easychair wrote: »

My guess is that it is now more important is to be able to put bread on the table for most families, rather than worry about a rise in a couple of degrees in a hundred or so years time.

this really shows how little world news is considered when we debate climate change in this country, and how limited an understanding of climate change many appear to still have.

Macha

easychair wrote: »

I can't agree that the economic situation isn't really relevant, and imagine a referendum in Ireland might well demonstrate that a lot of Irish citizens would show they don't agree with you.

My guess is that it is now more important is to be able to put bread on the table for most families, rather than worry about a rise in a couple of degrees in a hundred or so years time.

Climate change is already happening. My point is we're already paying the cost of it, it just is paid indirectly by society, not by the people who actually emit.

Granted, a lot of the people who will suffer the most will be outside the borders of this country. Does that mean we should do nothing? Climate change is a global issue and our emissions don't stop at our boders - we are polluting the global commons of the atmosphere and ocean systems.

We've just come in the top 10 index of developed countries in the UN's latest report. We are already top of the pile and we're so wrapped up in our own problems, we ignore the fact that people in other countries, even within the EU have it far, far worse than we do.

The problem is carbon emissions are invisible (or rather the ability of the atmosphere and oceans to absorb our greenhouse gas emissions) and more abstract than another resource like water. It doesn't mean that the resource is not finite and it certainly doesn't mean that there aren't consequences to misusing it.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

My guess is that it is now more important is to be able to put bread on the table for most families...

Irish people are among the wealthiest in the world and have very generous welfare supports at their disposal - putting bread on the table is not an issue for the overwhelming majority.

easychair

Macha wrote: »

Granted, a lot of the people who will suffer the most will be outside the borders of this country. Does that mean we should do nothing?

It's long past the time when Irish people did "nothing", so your rhetorical questions is years out of date.

Macha wrote: »

We've just come in the top 10 index of developed countries in the UN's latest report. We are already top of the pile and we're so wrapped up in our own problems, we ignore the fact that people in other countries, even within the EU have it far, far worse than we do.

I think this paragraph perfectly illustrates a complete misunderstanding of the Irish people. If the pile to which you refer is the pile of bankrupt countries, then Ireland may very well be near the top of it.

For a start, currently, in Ireland there are nearly 15% of the workforce unemployed, and 430000 claiming welfare due to unemployment.

Then you might like to consider all those on minimum wage type jobs, or all those in the (A) private sector and (b) public sector who have taken significant pay cuts just to try to keep a job.

For them, many of them have mortgages, central heating bills, electricity bills, cay payments and so and so on, and just making ends meet is not only a struggle but is now almost and impossibility.

To many of these people, the "problem" of carbon emissions is one which is not uppermost in their minds, just as it isn't likely to be very high on the list of priorities of those who have committed suicide in Ireland this year, which is rampant according to many coroners.

The consequences which face these people are more immediate than the consequences of a rise in temperature of 1 or 2 degrees over the next hundred years or so, and to tell them they are doing "nothing" about it is ridiculous, as all Irish people are currently paying carbon and other taxes, recycling and so and so on.

No one is arguing that the issue is unimportant, but it's just slipped down the list of priorities for many people.

Macha

easychair wrote: »

It's long past the time when Irish people did "nothing", so your rhetorical questions is years out of date.

When you consider the fact that we were allowed to increase emissions by 13% and we increased them by 26% instead, and are only going to achieve our 2012 targets through the global recession, I think it's a perfectly valid statement to make.

You can bring out all the statistics you want about Ireland, the fact remains that we are still one of the richest, wealthiest, most well-off countries in the world. The fact that people can't accept this speaks volumes of how out of touch we are with the rest of the world.

People might need help paying their heating bills but they won't starve, like they do in many countries. It's about perspective. I used to live in a third world country and even at that, I was a wealthy European living a cocooned lifestyle. Most of us don't have the slightest idea what it's like to live in India, SE Asia or in any other of the many countries far less well off than Ireland.

SeanW

Macha wrote: »

do you really think China and India are going to move if they see the EU sitting on its hands?

No, I see us regulating our industries into the ground, and destroying whats left of our quality of life, while the Chinese and Indians create more jobs in their countries and they attain what was once our lifestyle.

I imagine they (the Chinese) are hoping that Europe/US does listen to the enviornmentalists for this very reason.

I should also point out that environmentalists are as responsible as anyone else for the current CO2 emissions for their ... questionable ... stance on nuclear energy. Like Germany where the recent phase-out of nuclear energy has been the equivalent of putting 4.4 million cars on the road. All at the behest of environmentalist scaremongerers. Somehow, the equivalent of putting 4.4 million cars on the road is supposed to contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions? But silly me, I keep forgetting that we live in a Bizzarro world where up is down, left is right and nothing makes sense except irrational fear.

Without a means to make industry efficient, provide clean & reliable energy and not yet having non-petroluem cars, any climate change bill could only possibly have three planks:

1. Send more jobs to China by destroying what's left of our industrial/agricultural base.
2. Make life hell for motorists.
3. Continue wasting money on renewable energy sources that are ridiculously expensive and cannot be controlled or relied on in any way. (Actually no, renewables can have a demonstrable negative correlation with demand in the case of extremely inclement weather like we had in Christmas 2010.)

You give me evidence that the mainstread environmental movement has any better plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions than the above, I'll back it 100%. But I doubt it.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

I imagine they (the Chinese) are hoping that Europe/US does listen to the enviornmentalists for this very reason.

I should also point out that environmentalists are as responsible as anyone else for the current CO2 emissions for their ... questionable ... stance on nuclear energy. Like Germany where the recent phase-out of nuclear energy has been the equivalent of putting 4.4 million cars on the road. All at the behest of environmentalist scaremongerers. Somehow, the equivalent of putting 4.4 million cars on the road is supposed to contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions?
...
You give me evidence that the mainstread environmental movement has any better plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions than the above, I'll back it 100%. But I doubt it.

[MOD]Sean,

This is your absolute last and final warning about (a) dragging almost every thread you become involved in toward a discussion of nuclear power in Germany and (b) referring to absolutely anyone who holds a view that differs from yours as a homogenous group of “environmentalist scaremongerers” or something similar. Stick to the topic at hand please.[/MOD]

Sponge Bob

The Nuclear argument is perfectly valid although maybe not quite all the time. I wholeheartedly agree with Seán.

The Green Carbon Tax has reduced petrol consumption drastically since its implementation has it not??

djpbarry

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The Nuclear argument is perfectly valid although maybe not quite all the time. I wholeheartedly agree with Seán.

I'm not suggesting that there is not a place for discussion of nuclear power on this or any other thread. However, Sean seems to have a particular obsession with Germany's policy on nuclear energy.

easychair

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The Nuclear argument is perfectly valid although maybe not quite all the time. I wholeheartedly agree with Seán.

The Green Carbon Tax has reduced petrol consumption drastically since its implementation has it not??

Of course increasing taxes reduces consumption, and the drop you refer to is also affected by all those people who have already emigrated from Ireland no longer contributing and paying any tax, and all those Poles and other eastern europeans who have also left Ireland.

Petrol, and diesel are not luxuries in Ireland , but are necessities. Most people need a car to just go to the shops or get to work, and it's not like London where there is a decent transport system if one chooses not to use ones own car.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

Most people need a car to just go to the shops or get to work...

Most people? I find that extremely hard to believe.

easychair wrote: »

...and it's not like London where there is a decent transport system if one chooses not to use ones own car.

That really depends on whereabouts you’re located.

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

Most people? I find that extremely hard to believe.

Well, sure we can argue whether its "most" people or "many" people, and I was really thinking of all those people who live in Dublin, Meath, Westmeath, Wicklow and Wexford who commute to work. For many of them, public transport is either not available or is not an attractive option.

All those living in rural Ireland have virtually no public transport (try getting from Dublin to West Cork, for example, using public transport - the trains stop at Cork and its a pretty ropey, slow and dirty bus service from then on, making the whole trip take hours longer than by car. I could go on.

My point is that public transport in Ireland is generally poor where it exists at all,making the car a necessity.

djpbarry wrote: »

That really depends on whereabouts you’re located.

I live in London and have a car. Sometimes the engine doesn't get started for weeks on end, and the combination of buses, tubes and trains means that I find I get about London with little difficulty on public transport.

Ditto when I am travelling outside London I find the trains excellent, and all the London airports have good, regular and multiple train services from the center of London. Dublin Airport has no train service at all, and try arriving at, for example, Shannon or Cork airports where, without a car, you are pretty much stranded unless you like to use infrequent buses.

I love Ireland, but lets not pretend the public transport is reliable and attractive, where it is even available across the country.

SeanW

I'm sorry I went on something of a tangent but I just don't see what a climate change bill will accomplish at this time.

There are places where public transport could be massively expanded and would do everyone good, both people and the enviornment, but the country is broke and our government (perhaps under pressure from our so-called "friends" :mad: in Europe) have a policy of pissing our money away paying off billionaire speculators instead. We also cannot get people to move into apartments (thus facilitating higher density railways etc) because the ones built during the Celtic Tiger bubble were all lowest common denominatior trash. Priory Hall is just one in a long line of shoddily built steaming piles of horse manure. So any sane Irish person would prefer to live in a house, limiting further the potential for 'smart' transport.

So there can be no transportation aspect to a CCB save for more pain to be heaped on motorists.

Industry? Again our hands are tied - we have a near 15% unemployment rate, like the rest of the Western world primarily because of the roaring economies of Asia.
I read with dismay the comments about China following us WRT carbon regulation. China in particular is a country where foul play in business is practically a national sport. Is it really credible to think that China is going to massively regulate their industrial base in response to us doing so?

More likely they would conclude - and rightly so, given the facts of life at present - that all their Christmases had come at once.

Power generation? Well, my views are well known there, again there are very few available options, and again those options are usually "make the plebs PAY!"

So my question to those complaining about the lack of Climate Change Bilk is quite simply this - what would you have wanted to have in a Climate Change Bill?

Macha

What the Climate Bill will achieve is the proper legislative framework for us to meet the targets we already have to meet under our EU and international obligations.

Our hands are most certainly not tied - as one of the countries with the highest per capita emissions in the world, it's ridiculous for anyone to suggest as much.

I wish people would stop pretending there isn't a cost associated with carbon emissions. We should have to pay for that resource, the same way we should pay for water. Why people think Ireland, one of the most developed countries in the world, should receive special dispensation to carry on emitting scott free is just beyond me. Funnily enough, I'm pretty sure the Chinese make good arguments for why they shouldn't have to do anything, as do the Americans and every other country.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

Well, sure we can argue whether its "most" people or "many" people, and I was really thinking of all those people who live in Dublin, Meath, Westmeath, Wicklow and Wexford who commute to work. For many of them, public transport is either not available or is not an attractive option.

Well, that’s the lifestyle they chose. I know people are going to have a go at me for saying, as they have done in the past, but you can’t move into an area with no public transport, knowing that you’re going to be dependent on your car, then complain about the fact that your dependent on your car, as there’s no public transport.

easychair wrote: »

All those living in rural Ireland have virtually no public transport (try getting from Dublin to West Cork, for example, using public transport...

That’s a pretty silly example really – it’s never going to be feasible to have every rural location well-connected by public transport. If a person chooses to live in a rural location (in any country), they must accept that they will be more dependent on a car than someone in a city.

easychair wrote: »

My point is that public transport in Ireland is generally poor where it exists at all,making the car a necessity.

So how does anyone in Ireland manage without owning a car? According to the 2006 census, over 40% of households in Dublin did not own a car – what gives?

easychair wrote: »

Ditto when I am travelling outside London I find the trains excellent...

I find them exceptionally expensive and subject to frequent delays and cancellations. And let’s not pretend that there are not plenty of rural locations in the UK inaccessible by rail.

easychair wrote: »

...and all the London airports have good, regular and multiple train services from the center of London. Dublin Airport has no train service at all....

It is far quicker and cheaper to get into the centre of Dublin from Dublin Airport than it is to reach the centre of London from Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton or Stansted, rail service or no rail service.

But then, London is about 10 times the size of Dublin, so I don’t really see the point in comparing the two. Particularly given it’s not really relevant to the thread.

easychair wrote: »

I love Ireland, but lets not pretend the public transport is reliable and attractive, where it is even available across the country.

I’m not arguing that public transport throughout Ireland is excellent. I am arguing against the idea that everyone in Ireland needs a car.

Grudaire

There was another article on it again today in the Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1107/1224307166805.html

This time it focuses on the fact that this is contrary to what FG promised in the last election (but sure that's politicians I suppose )

"Early last month, Hogan and his senior officials took part in a behind-closed-doors briefing organised by Ibec. The meeting, according to Ibec chief Danny McCoy, was “a timely opportunity for our members to influence the development of a climate policy framework”. Understandably, McCoy was “particularly pleased the Minister will be joining us”. In private. No reporters, no notes. Oisín Coghlan of Friends of the Earth remarked at the time that Hogan was running the “Galway tent of climate politics”."

That bit of the article makes the whole thing stink a bit but more importantly it points out what excuse Hogan used to ditch the legislation, and why those excuses are complete bull..

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not arguing that public transport throughout Ireland is excellent. I am arguing against the idea that everyone in Ireland needs a car.

I agree and would never suggest everyone needs a car. In Ireland a car is a necessity for many or most (take your pick) people.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

In Ireland a car is a necessity for many or most (take your pick) people.

No it isn’t. If so many people in Ireland need a car, then why is car ownership slightly low by European standards? The latest available figures (2007) put car ownership in Ireland at 437 per 1,000 inhabitants. The EU average for that year was 463 per 1,000, with the UK being pretty much bang on the average (464 per 1,000).

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tsdpc340

SeanW

Macha wrote: »

What the Climate Bill will achieve is the proper legislative framework ...

But what does that actually mean? Beyond:

Macha wrote:

pay

Funnily enough, I'm pretty sure the Chinese make good arguments for why they shouldn't have to do anything, as do the Americans and every other country.

Perhaps, but with all due respect, that's not good enough!

You brought the Chinese into it and you brought causality into it - i.e. what's the chance that China will do X if they see us doing Y.
The probability is of course, 0, but I would contend that if we trashed our economy, sent our already sky-high unemployment rates even higher, than the causal response from China would be to take the jobs and economic activity - AND THE EMISSIONS that go with it - greedily and with both hands.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I am all ears. But with the West in decline, and Asia is in a meteoric rise, doesn't seem like a good time to engage in economic suicide.

Furthermore, this idea that we MUST choose between economy/quality of life and ecology/a healthy planet is a false choice. I contend, commensurate with my tangent above, that a review of options for power generation could yield as much CO2 emissions reductions as trashing what's left of our economy would, while increasing our national security and actually providing jobs instead of sending yet more of them to Asia.

In short, I don't want a Climate Change Bill that just makes life more difficult for people or destroys business, or that just contains one plank - "make the plebs PAY." All of which seems to be in vogue here.

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

But what does that actually mean? Beyond:

This really is a moot point. We have to meet our 2020 targets, end of. Any amount of discussion here will not change that.

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps, but with all due respect, that's not good enough!

You brought the Chinese into it and you brought causality into it - i.e. what's the chance that China will do X if they see us doing Y.
The probability is of course, 0, but I would contend that if we trashed our economy, sent our already sky-high unemployment rates even higher, than the causal response from China would be to take the jobs and economic activity - AND THE EMISSIONS that go with it - greedily and with both hands.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I am all ears. But with the West in decline, and Asia is in a meteoric rise, doesn't seem like a good time to engage in economic suicide.

Furthermore, this idea that we MUST choose between economy/quality of life and ecology/a healthy planet is a false choice. I contend, commensurate with my tangent above, that a review of options for power generation could yield as much CO2 emissions reductions as trashing what's left of our economy would, while increasing our national security and actually providing jobs instead of sending yet more of them to Asia.

In short, I don't want a Climate Change Bill that just makes life more difficult for people or destroys business, or that just contains one plank - "make the plebs PAY." All of which seems to be in vogue here.

Firstly, Asia's massive GDP growth (and a large part of their carbon emissions for that matter) come from the provision of goods & services to the West. In the globalised society, it doesn't just matter what's happening in your region, what's happening to your customers also matters.

China is actually showing more leadership in this issue than the USA - have you read their latest 5-year plan? Environmental protection is one of the main themes.

I didn't argue that we have to chose between an economy and our environment - quite obviously because our economy exists within the environment and therefore is entirely contingent on its existence and health.

You claim that you don't think that either - yet go on to claim that the introduction of a climate bill will "destroy business"? Make up your mind!

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

No it isn’t. If so many people in Ireland need a car, then why is car ownership slightly low by European standards?

I wasn't aware that those in Ireland who consider they are dependent on their cars are disallowed from being allowed to say so because they find themselves on the wrong side of a European average.

It's an interesting argument to claim that, because the number of people per thousand who have cars in, for example, the UK is higher than the number of people per thousand owing cars in Ireland, then those with cars in Ireland are not allowed to consider that they are dependent on their cars.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

I wasn't aware that those in Ireland who consider they are dependent on their cars are disallowed from being allowed to say so because they find themselves on the wrong side of a European average.

You claimed that a car is a necessity for most people in Ireland. Evidently, you are wrong.

easychair wrote: »

It's an interesting argument to claim that, because the number of people per thousand who have cars in, for example, the UK is higher than the number of people per thousand owing cars in Ireland, then those with cars in Ireland are not allowed to consider that they are dependent on their cars.

If public transport in the UK is as excellent as you claim it is (relative to Ireland), then why do more people in the UK (relative to Ireland) feel the need to buy cars?

Simple answers to simple questions would be nice.

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

You claimed that a car is a necessity for most people in Ireland. Evidently, you are wrong.

If its important for you that you think I am wrong, then thats fine by me.

djpbarry wrote: »

If public transport in the UK is as excellent as you claim it is (relative to Ireland), then why do more people in the UK (relative to Ireland) feel the need to buy cars?

I have never claimed that public transport in England is excellent, not do I make any claims as to what the people of England feel.

If it's your opinion that most or many Irish people do not feel dependant on their cars, then thats your view.

Lets agree to disagree and move on.

Macha

[mod]Let's try to stick to facts please and not get into debates about what one poster thinks the other poster thinks.[/mod]

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

I have never claimed that public transport in England is excellent...

Sure you did. You said you rarely need your car in London as you can get about without difficulty on public transport and, outside London, you find the trains excellent.

So, what I’m wondering is – and this is important in the context of drafting policy to combat climate change – if public transport in the UK is so fantastic relative to Ireland, then why is it that more people in the UK own cars relative to Ireland? Could it be that people simply want to own cars, rather than need them? Could it simply be a lifestyle choice? And if people in the UK are making such a choice, could it be that people in Ireland are making similar choices? You’re using an apparent lack of public transport in Ireland as an explanation for a perceived need for cars, but that would contradict what you’re saying about the UK.

An actual answer this time would be nice.

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure you did. You said you rarely need your car in London as you can get about without difficulty on public transport and, outside London, you find the trains excellent.

So, what I’m wondering is – and this is important in the context of drafting policy to combat climate change – if public transport in the UK is so fantastic relative to Ireland, then why is it that more people in the UK own cars relative to Ireland? Could it be that people simply want to own cars, rather than need them? Could it simply be a lifestyle choice? And if people in the UK are making such a choice, could it be that people in Ireland are making similar choices? You’re using an apparent lack of public transport in Ireland as an explanation for a perceived need for cars, but that would contradict what you’re saying about the UK.

An actual answer this time would be nice.

I agree with Macha that it would be great if we could avoid debates about what you think I have said. I have never said I think transport in the UK is so fantastic. In fact, I've previously told you I don't think that.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

I agree with Macha that it would be great if we could avoid debates about what you think I have said.

I dare say you've misinterpreted Macha's post. I'm not debating what I think you've said, I'm trying to discuss what you've actually posted (see below).

easychair wrote: »

I have never said I think transport in the UK is so fantastic.

Sure you did. Right here, you waxed lyrical about the UK's transport system. I suppose you're going to suggest that "excellent trains" and "fantastic public transport" are not the same thing?

anymore

BryanF wrote: »

can someone explain to me why so much of this is about farming (dont tell me its about methane! that BS) (and we all know who voted for Hogan but)

surely the farming sector is a scape goat here. personally i don't see why the farming sector should suffer, if the real players effected here such as oil/gas, transport and heavy industry, along with construction were targeted effectively then could we leave the food sector alone?

irish agriculture is one of the bigggest generators of green gases and farming is almost as dependent on oil co's as transport is !

darragh_haven

djpbarry wrote: »

I doubt that.

Doubt all ya want, but its true:D

Macha

darragh_haven wrote: »

Doubt all ya want, but its true:D

[mod]Please be prepared to back up statements of fact with sources. Restating that it's true doesn't exactly further the debate.[/mod]