Is Fine Gael in climate change denial

LeinsterDub

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I'll have to dig out the figures but Transport in all forms accounts for just 20% of total emissions. When you strip out domestic aviation, public transport, fuel tourism, road haulage and rail, you find that in absolute terms, private car transport accounts for about 7% of the overall emissions figures. The small size of car figures tends to surprise us given how ubiquitous the car is. We forget though that the average car spends between 95 -99% of it's life parked up.

From memory I think the CO2 emissions from cars is roughly the same as domestic turf burning for heating.

Which would be easier to change?

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii2016/ggcc/

A useful link for all

FreudianSlippers

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii2016/ggcc/

A useful link for all

Agriculture and Forestry was the sector with the largest greenhouse gas emissions in Ireland in 2014 with 33% of the total.

The Transport share of greenhouse gas emissions in Ireland increased from 9% in 1990 to a peak of 21% in 2007. In 2014 it stood at 19% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

I didn't see a breakdown between private / commercial transport?

LeinsterDub

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I didn't see a breakdown between private / commercial transport?

It doesn't but it's a decent base for this discussion .

FreudianSlippers

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It doesn't but it's a decent base for this discussion .

Oh wait here it is: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii2016/trans/

The number of licensed vehicles in Ireland increased by 181%, from 915,000 to 2.6 million, between 1985 and 2015.

Private cars accounted for the majority of this growth with an increase of almost 1.3 million vehicles between 1985 and 2015.

The number of goods vehicles licensed has grown more than threefold from 93,000 in 1985 to 331,000 in 2015.

Road Freight transport in Ireland peaked in 2007, when there were just under 300 million tonnes carried, over 18.7 billion tonne-kilometres and 2.3 billion vehicle kilometres travelled. Activity levels fell significantly in the next five years before increasing again in 2014. In 2014 there were 112.5 million tonnes carried, 9.8 billion tonne-kilometres travelled and 1.3 billion vehicle kilometres travelled.

Viewed with Table 6.3, it would be logical to assume that the level of pollution from private cars is not an insignificant portion of the 19% but I wouldn't suggest it is any more than 30% of the 19%

MrMusician18

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Oh wait here it is: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii2016/trans/





Viewed with Table 6.3, it would be logical to assume that the level of pollution from private cars is not an insignificant portion of the 19% but I wouldn't suggest it is any more than 30% of the 19%

Which would put it at just under 6% (I said 7%) of total emissions, my memory isn't that bad so.

We get caught up in taking relatively huge measures which have a poor return, which is nothing more than green washing tbh. Simply banning all turf cutting would have a far greater return than electrification of the entire national private car fleet.

FreudianSlippers

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Which would put it at just under 6% (I said 7%) of total emissions, my memory isn't that bad so.

We get caught up in taking relatively huge measures which have a poor return, which is nothing more than green washing tbh. Simply banning all turf cutting would have a far greater return than electrification of the entire national private car fleet.

I'm not sure the data backs you up on that. Look at Table 6.3 in terms of the Motor Tax change in 2009. The proportion of new private cars registered in emission bands A and B increased from 12% in 2005 to 95% in 2015, while the proportion in emission bands E, F and G fell from 37% to 1% over this period.

That's a huge reduction of pollution as a result of a green policy of taxation. The fact that the total "transportation" pot only reduced by 1% is directly correlative to the increase in commercial transportation.

The return on the 2009 tax amendment has more than offset a massive increase in commercial transportation.

LeinsterDub

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Which would put it at just under 6% (I said 7%) of total emissions, my memory isn't that bad so.

We get caught up in taking relatively huge measures which have a poor return, which is nothing more than green washing tbh. Simply banning all turf cutting would have a far greater return than electrification of the entire national private car fleet.

Yes banning turf cutting and re-wetting the bogs would be simple and very effective .

FreudianSlippers

It's a multi-pronged solution that is required - just because one thing would have a huge impact doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing other things also.

I'd agree with the opinion that any carbon tax should be used solely to invest in renewable energy in Ireland for domestic use and sale to other countries.

We are in desperate need of a taxation overhaul.

MrMusician18

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's a multi-pronged solution that is required - just because one thing would have a huge impact doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing other things also.

I'd agree with the opinion that any carbon tax should be used solely to invest in renewable energy in Ireland for domestic use and sale to other countries.

We are in desperate need of a taxation overhaul.

It agree with the first paragraph above in particular. A multi pronged approach should focus on the areas that give the greatest return as a priority. Electrification of the private car fleet in it's entirely would see overall emissions fall by what, 3.5%? Hardly a huge gain given the massive investment involved.

Moneypoint is the largest single emitter in the country, we should start there.

FreudianSlippers

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It agree with the first paragraph above in particular. A multi pronged approach should focus on the areas that give the greatest return as a priority. Electrification of the private car fleet in it's entirely would see overall emissions fall by what, 3.5%? Hardly a huge gain given the massive investment involved.

Moneypoint is the largest single emitter in the country, we should start there.

I would prefer large-scale government investment into providing significant grants for solar PV on private residential properties than "electrification of the private car fleet", but I believe the policy of VRT/Motor Tax being based on CO2 has been sufficient and continues to be sufficient to drive people towards electric/hybrid vehicles. I do believe, however, that the Government should take active measures to get people to move away from diesel cars.

blanch152

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would prefer large-scale government investment into providing significant grants for solar PV on private residential properties than "electrification of the private car fleet", but I believe the policy of VRT/Motor Tax being based on CO2 has been sufficient and continues to be sufficient to drive people towards electric/hybrid vehicles. I do believe, however, that the Government should take active measures to get people to move away from diesel cars.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/brexit-blamed-as-new-car-sales-fall-44-in-2018-895224.html


Both electric cars and hybrid cars saw significant increases in sales in 2018, albeit from very low bases. Diesel was also reducing.

The big question is the surge in imported cars from the UK. If this is the result of Irish people taking advantage of low-priced diesel second-hand cars in the UK, it is typical of the short-term approach of many Irish people, but also something that the government should address.

Reducing diesel usage which is causing health issues in cities, but also increasing hybrid sales should be the immediate priorities. Electric-only requires a much better network of charging than currently available in order to get mass uptake. However, there will come a point where the size of this island, together with battery development would make the sale of anything other than electric cars the right policy.

dense

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's a multi-pronged solution that is required - just because one thing would have a huge impact doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing other things also.

Can you describe the problem as you see it, and the proportion of it that you see Ireland as being responsible for?



Let us approach this problem clearly and rationally in order to prevent irrational or disproportionate "solutions" being proposed.

Eric Cartman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Oh wait here it is: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii2016/trans/





Viewed with Table 6.3, it would be logical to assume that the level of pollution from private cars is not an insignificant portion of the 19% but I wouldn't suggest it is any more than 30% of the 19%

Id agree with that, which suggests that we realostically need to lower road haulage to make an impact , building better inter county rail links and giving vrt/ motor tax discounts on newer more efficient trucks would he the way to do such.

road_high

Realistically I suppose we’ll never see Nuclear power here such is the ferocity of public hysteria here and the general weakness of the state vs the anti everything mobs.
Along with renewables, one decent sized one could probably supply most of the nations electrical needs

FreudianSlippers

dense wrote: »

Can you describe the problem as you see it,

Greenhouse gasses and man-made climate change - that's what this thread is about isn't it?

and the proportion of it that you see Ireland as being responsible for?

Please see post 52. Ireland had the third highest emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent per capita in the EU in 2013.

Let us approach this problem clearly and rationally in order to prevent irrational or disproportionate "solutions" being proposed.

Let's - there is no disproportionate solutions being proposed in terms of climate change and reduction of greenhouse gasses being produced.

James Brown

road_high wrote: »

Realistically I suppose we’ll never see Nuclear power here such is the ferocity of public hysteria here and the general weakness of the state vs the anti everything mobs.
Along with renewables, one decent sized one could probably supply most of the nations electrical needs

I think we have an advantage over the likes of the U.S. due to the size of Ireland and the lack of real U.S. style lobbying, which is the hand that rocks Trumps cradle. We could easily roll out alternative energy initiatives, but as you suggest the easier less hassle quick route is the norm so tax it is. I can't see any incoming FF government being any different.

FreudianSlippers

road_high wrote: »

Realistically I suppose we’ll never see Nuclear power here such is the ferocity of public hysteria here and the general weakness of the state vs the anti everything mobs.
Along with renewables, one decent sized one could probably supply most of the nations electrical needs

With all the other potential renewable sources we have available to us here, do we really need nuclear?

dense

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Greenhouse gasses and man-made climate change - that's what this thread is about isn't it?


Please see post 52. Ireland had the third highest emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent per capita in the EU in 2013.


Let's - there is no disproportionate solutions being proposed in terms of climate change and reduction of greenhouse gasses being produced.

You begin by editing a sentence in my post, and that's not a great start!


Any solution is potentially disproportionate if you cannot demonstrate the proportion of man made global warming that you infer Ireland is responsible for causing, or future warming that our taxes and actions here can potentially prevent.



If you want me to believe a claim that Ireland's emissions are causing global warming you'll first have to provide some evidence of the effect that Ireland's emissions have had on global temperatures and climate change.


Activists say the planet has warmed by ~0.9°C since the "pre-industrial period".
What proportion of that was caused by Ireland, and how would future climate change be affected if Ireland went fossil fuel free?


So Ireland has the third highest emissions per capita in the EU, but, so what?

road_high

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

With all the other potential renewable sources we have available to us here, do we really need nuclear?

Perhaps not I don’t know- I just know we have plenty of fossil fuel ones like Moneypoint so not sure we could rely totally on renewable energy

FreudianSlippers

dense wrote: »

You begin by editing a sentence in my post, and that's not a great start!

That's a flat out lie; I broke down two parts of your sentence, I did not edit it.

Any solution is potentially disproportionate if you cannot demonstrate the proportion of man made global warming that you infer Ireland is responsible for causing, or future warming that our taxes and actions here can potentially prevent.

Figures were posted.

If you want me to believe a claim that Ireland's emissions are causing global warming you'll first have to provide some evidence of the effect that Ireland's emissions have had on global temperatures and climate change.

Are you claiming Ireland, as third worst CO2 producer per capita in the EU, has no impact on a global scale?

Activists say the planet has warmed by ~0.9°C since the "pre-industrial period".
What proportion of that was caused by Ireland, and how would future climate change be affected if Ireland went fossil fuel free?

Why does it matter?

So Ireland has the third highest emissions per capita in the EU, but, so what?

It shouldn't be.

oscarBravo

dense wrote: »

If you want me to believe a claim that Ireland's emissions are causing global warming...

Whoah. Back up.

Are you trying to make an argument that Ireland's emissions are not causing global warming?

Because that's an extraordinary position to stake out, and it's only reasonable to expect you to justify it first.

oscarBravo

Coming back to the OP: this thread is a perfect illustration of why our government is in denial about the steps we need to take to address climate change.

Governments are made of politicians, and politicians tend represent the wishes of their voters, for better or worse. From this thread alone, we get a sense of the range of opinions as to what our responsibilities are.

A small handful of the electorate believe that we need to take serious action to address climate change. A small handful are completely delusional and think that there is no climate change. And a significant majority fall on a spectrum where, to a greater or lesser extent they understand that something needs to be done, but only if it means no impact on them personally.

I've said it many times: if we want a better government, we're going to need better voters.

Macha

road_high wrote: »

Perhaps not I don’t know- I just know we have plenty of fossil fuel ones like Moneypoint so not sure we could rely totally on renewable energy

Nuclear and renewables do not go well together in a power system, especially one as small as Ireland's. Nuclear is incredibly inflexible while renewables are very flexible. Trying to build out both would result in an incredibly expensive system.

The trick to understanding how an electricity system really works is not just to think about supply but all the other services required. So we don't just need renewables, we need a portfolio of energy resources that will allow for an extremely high share of renewables. That means things like flexibility - demand response, storage, coupling with the transport and heating/cooling sectors etc. Nuclear just doesn't fit into that picture.

Bottom line: the problem (by which I mean the whole climate change debate, not just the eletricity sector) is not a technical one, it's a political one.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Don't quote other forums please. Post deleted.

Idbatterim

anything they do will be deemed an attack on rural ireland! driving up diesel prices because only those outside dublin drive diesels :rolleyes: I'm pretty sure a hypothetical carbon tax increase that would only apply to fuel sold in county Dublin would be another attack on "rural ireland"

Idbatterim

if they really did care about the environment, then increase petrol and diesel cost and use this money to drive people towards electric cars with various incentives...

Eric Cartman

Idbatterim wrote: »

anything they do will be deemed an attack on rural ireland! driving up diesel prices because only those outside dublin drive diesels :rolleyes: I'm pretty sure a hypothetical carbon tax increase that would only apply to fuel sold in county Dublin would be another attack on "rural ireland"

A congestion charge for cities would be the only way to not impact rural Ireland.

Eric Cartman

Idbatterim wrote: »

if they really did care about the environment, then increase petrol and diesel cost and use this money to drive people towards electric cars with various incentives...

Its like if everyone in Ireland quit smoking and drinking, the government wants to be seen to want it to happen but the revenue lost if it did would cripple them. That and as long as the NIMBY's keep objecting to interconnectors, turbines, pylons, cables etc.. we do not have the electricity infrastructure to deal with Ireland going EV as a majority.

Idbatterim

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A congestion charge for cities would be the only way to not impact rural Ireland.

6 billion being thieved off Dublin to go to "rural Ireland" they can get their bloody electrics and drive for virtually nothing, I'm sure they will come up with some belly aching about that too :rolleyes:

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think we have an advantage over the likes of the U.S. due to the size of Ireland and the lack of real U.S. style lobbying, which is the hand that rocks Trumps cradle. We could easily roll out alternative energy initiatives, but as you suggest the easier less hassle quick route is the norm so tax it is. I can't see any incoming FF government being any different.

What about Denis O'Brien? I thought that he was running the FG government.

As for Trump, I don't the lobbying is what is "rocking his cradle", he is just plain crazy and many of the lobbyists are as upset with him as the trendy left-wing journalists. The fact that Trump is his own man is what makes him so popular. Nobody can predict what he will say next, not even a lobbyist.

Carbon taxes are needed badly, we are obliged to introduce them, only someone who is acting out of self-interest, or doesn't care about climate change would suggest otherwise.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

With all the other potential renewable sources we have available to us here, do we really need nuclear?

The issue with renewables is continuity of supply. Some sort of power storage, whether by use of more stations like Turlough Hill, or whether it is conventional battery storage is needed.

https://esbarchives.ie/portfolio/turlough-hill/

dense

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's a flat out lie; I broke down two parts of your sentence, I did not edit it.

You edited out the second half of my sentence.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Figures were posted.

No, they weren't. If they were we would not be continuing the conversation discussing a lack of information.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Are you claiming Ireland, as third worst CO2 producer per capita in the EU, has no impact on a global scale?

Let me put it this way:
If you wish to claim there is an impact on a global scale please provide evidence of it; it may help to quantify the effect that you seem to be saying Ireland's emissions have had on and can have on global temperatures and climate change.

Then we shall be in a more knowledgeable position to determine whether the taxes you are advocating are proportionate or indeed have any potential to positively affect global warming/climate change.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

You begin by editing a sentence in my post, and that's not a great start!


Any solution is potentially disproportionate if you cannot demonstrate the proportion of man made global warming that you infer Ireland is responsible for causing, or future warming that our taxes and actions here can potentially prevent.



If you want me to believe a claim that Ireland's emissions are causing global warming you'll first have to provide some evidence of the effect that Ireland's emissions have had on global temperatures and climate change.


Activists say the planet has warmed by ~0.9°C since the "pre-industrial period".
What proportion of that was caused by Ireland, and how would future climate change be affected if Ireland went fossil fuel free?


So Ireland has the third highest emissions per capita in the EU, but, so what?

The last sentence of your post proves the point that the Irish people are responsible for more than their fair share of the global warming problem. That means that they should take responsibility for more than their fair share of the solution.

That means we should have higher carbon taxes than the average. That means we need to move away from unsustainable urban sprawl and rural living to a settlement policy of high-density sustainable cities. Project 2040 is a small start along the way. The earlier drafts of it were better, before the rural independent TDs got their NIMBY hands on it, but there is enough to work with, before it is reviewed.

MrMusician18

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A congestion charge for cities would be the only way to not impact rural Ireland.

It would also have next to no impact on Irish carbon emissions, since as we've already discussed, private car use contributes very little to the overall problem.

The householder/commuter is responsible for about 17% of total Irish emissions, while industry accounts for the remaining 83%.

I see little point in taxing the ordinary individual when it comes to reducing carbon, when it is industry that is the problem. Agriculture (32%), and energy generation (20%) account for half the carbon alone.

I'm all for everyone doing their bit, but surely it's easier to get the few in industry to make the big changes, rather than the many citizens to make similarly big changes.

blanch152

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It would also have next to no impact on Irish carbon emissions, since as we've already discussed, private car use contributes very little to the overall problem.

The householder/commuter is responsible for about 17% of total Irish emissions, while industry accounts for the remaining 83%.

I see little point in taxing the ordinary individual when it comes to reducing carbon, when it is industry that is the problem. Agriculture (32%), and energy generation (20%) account for half the carbon alone.

I'm all for everyone doing their bit, but surely it's easier to get the few in industry to make the big changes, rather than the many citizens to make similarly big changes.

Carbon taxes should apply to all, including agriculture.

Eric Cartman

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It would also have next to no impact on Irish carbon emissions, since as we've already discussed, private car use contributes very little to the overall problem.

The householder/commuter is responsible for about 17% of total Irish emissions, while industry accounts for the remaining 83%.

I see little point in taxing the ordinary individual when it comes to reducing carbon, when it is industry that is the problem. Agriculture (32%), and energy generation (20%) account for half the carbon alone.

I'm all for everyone doing their bit, but surely it's easier to get the few in industry to make the big changes, rather than the many citizens to make similarly big changes.

Sadly this is an issue where the plastic straw brigade seems to be in charge. A nuclear power station alone would let us hit our 2020 targets at this point. Im sure with an oversized one we could both support the infrastructure for electric cars and make electricity cheaper to industry which would offset their use of fossil fuels and thus lower carbon emissions.

It's much cheaper in many businesses to run almost any part of any machine or process that requires heat from natural gas and oil. Same with even forklifts in warehouses, often LPG is cheaper.

James Brown

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It would also have next to no impact on Irish carbon emissions, since as we've already discussed, private car use contributes very little to the overall problem.

The householder/commuter is responsible for about 17% of total Irish emissions, while industry accounts for the remaining 83%.

I see little point in taxing the ordinary individual when it comes to reducing carbon, when it is industry that is the problem. Agriculture (32%), and energy generation (20%) account for half the carbon alone.

I'm all for everyone doing their bit, but surely it's easier to get the few in industry to make the big changes, rather than the many citizens to make similarly big changes.

It will not dissuade any great numbers either but put more stress on people's income. As I say, if the money isn't put towards green initiatives it's just another cash grab under the guise of 'environment'. Such things turn people off any talk of the environment.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It will not dissuade any great numbers either but put more stress on people's income. As I say, if the money isn't put towards green initiatives it's just another cash grab under the guise of 'environment'. Such things turn people off any talk of the environment.

People like me are in favour of increasing carbon taxes, but reducing taxes on income in response, so that those who irresponsibly damage the environment are punished. The total amount of taxes should not increase.

The same should happen with expenditure. Green expenditure initiatives should replace other wasted expenditure.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

The last sentence of your post proves the point that the Irish people are responsible for more than their fair share of the global warming problem. That means that they should take responsibility for more than their fair share of the solution.

Just a moment please blanch152, how are you arriving at these conclusions?
Can you explain to people what you mean by Ireland's fair share of the observed ~0.9°C "global warming problem".

Is it for example, 0.000001°C, or 0.001°C?

How are you determining the share you that are saying that Irish people are responsible for, fair or otherwise?

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Just a moment please blanch152, how are you arriving at these conclusions?
Can you explain to people what you mean by Ireland's fair share of the observed ~0.9°C "global warming problem".

Is it for example, 0.000001°C, or 0.001°C?

How are you determining the share you that are saying that Irish people are responsible for, fair or otherwise?

Per capita, we are the third highest contributers in Europe. That means the average Irish person is contributing more than their fair share to the problem, and should contribute more than their fair share to the solution.

Unless you think we should just freeload on the problem, just like people who drive in bus lanes, dump rubbish by the side of the road etc. It is a question of whether we, as a country, are prepared to accept the consequences of our actions.

road_high

blanch152 wrote: »

People like me are in favour of increasing carbon taxes, but reducing taxes on income in response, so that those who irresponsibly damage the environment are punished. The total amount of taxes should not increase.

The same should happen with expenditure. Green expenditure initiatives should replace other wasted expenditure.

Would be ideal if that would happen- but it won’t, certainly not with the govts we vote in. It’s all short term stuff, I’ve no trust whatsoever they’d spend a carbon tax in any other way other than waste it on welfare and PS salaries.
As it is, how are excises on fuel spent? I’d hazard a good guess and say day to day spending. Carbon tax be the exact same. They’re just not capable of innovative thinking

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

People like me are in favour of increasing carbon taxes, but reducing taxes on income in response, so that those who irresponsibly damage the environment are punished. The total amount of taxes should not increase.

The same should happen with expenditure. Green expenditure initiatives should replace other wasted expenditure.

But where will the money for the €0.6bn in annual EU fines come from then, the health budget or the housing budget, or maybe the water infrastructure budget?



https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-faces-annual-eu-energy-fines-of-600m-36857141.html

blanch152

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sadly this is an issue where the plastic straw brigade seems to be in charge. A nuclear power station alone would let us hit our 2020 targets at this point. Im sure with an oversized one we could both support the infrastructure for electric cars and make electricity cheaper to industry which would offset their use of fossil fuels and thus lower carbon emissions.

It's much cheaper in many businesses to run almost any part of any machine or process that requires heat from natural gas and oil. Same with even forklifts in warehouses, often LPG is cheaper.

How could a nuclear power station let us hit our 2020 targets at this point?

It would be at least 15 years before it could get through planning, protests, court challenges and become operational. There is no point relying on something completely unrealistic as a proposal to solve climate change.

dense

road_high wrote: »

Would be ideal if that would happen- but it won’t, certainly not with the govts we vote in. It’s all short term stuff, I’ve no trust whatsoever they’d spent a carbon tax in any other way other than waste it on welfare and PS salaries.

That is the fear, but I thought our budgets have external EU oversight to ensure things like that don't happen. Ah, I must be thinking fondly of the Troika years!

blanch152

dense wrote: »

But where will the money for the €0.6bn in annual EU fines come from then, the health budget or the housing budget, or maybe the water infrastructure budget?



https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-faces-annual-eu-energy-fines-of-600m-36857141.html

That has to be found anyway. Separate issue.

road_high

dense wrote: »

That is the fear, but I thought our budgets have external EU oversight to ensure things like that don't happen. Ah, I must be thinking fondly of the Troika years!

No it seems back to the reckless years that would almost make Bertie blush...without the tax cuts for workers though

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Per capita, we are the third highest contributers in Europe. That means the average Irish person is contributing more than their fair share to the problem, and should contribute more than their fair share to the solution.

You've said that already, but will you articulate further about what you mean by Ireland's fair share of the ~0.9°c of global warming problem, after all it is a concept you have introduced to the conversation?


(I have heard similar constructs from the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change and when I contacted them for information about what element of global warming they say has been caused by Ireland, they said they don't have that information.)


It would be great if you have that information.

oscarBravo

Dense, would you mind addressing this point:

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you trying to make an argument that Ireland's emissions are not causing global warming?

Because that's an extraordinary position to stake out, and it's only reasonable to expect you to justify it first.

edit: Actually, I just saw your signature. Never mind, I can see that there's no basis for a rational discussion here.

marno21

dense wrote: »

But where will the money for the €0.6bn in annual EU fines come from then, the health budget or the housing budget, or maybe the water infrastructure budget?



https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-faces-annual-eu-energy-fines-of-600m-36857141.html

Probably something hair brained like cancelling the Metrolink project or some similar project which will help us to achieve our targets.

The scope for cutting capital budgets as was done 10 years ago is not there this time around.

Macha

blanch152 wrote: »

How could a nuclear power station let us hit our 2020 targets at this point?

It would be at least 15 years before it could get through planning, protests, court challenges and become operational. There is no point relying on something completely unrealistic as a proposal to solve climate change.

And nuclear is horrifically expensive. The UK's planned nuclear plant Hinkley Point C will be the most expensive power plant in the world - g it ever gets built.

blanch152

road_high wrote: »

Would be ideal if that would happen- but it won’t, certainly not with the govts we vote in. It’s all short term stuff, I’ve no trust whatsoever they’d spend a carbon tax in any other way other than waste it on welfare and PS salaries.
As it is, how are excises on fuel spent? I’d hazard a good guess and say day to day spending. Carbon tax be the exact same. They’re just not capable of innovative thinking

The two don't necessarily have to balance. We could replace €4 bn of income taxes with carbon taxes but only replace €500m of wasted expenditure with green expenditure.

It doesn't matter if carbon taxes are spent on social welfare, it matters that it replaces income tax.