Is Fine Gael in climate change denial

FreudianSlippers

dense wrote: »

You edited out the second half of my sentence.

I'm sorry but that is a lie.

Here's the relevant section of your post:

dense wrote: »

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

Here's my post with the full sentence addressed:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

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

You ignoring the CSO figures posted multiple times does not mean it has noot been posted.

Dytalus

dense wrote: »

What is the contribution that you are claiming Irish people have caused?
You cannot simply invent a construct such as claiming that "Ireland has disproportionately contributed to global warming" of 0.9°C if you are unable to provide any evidence to demonstrate the portion of global warming that you are claiming we have disproportionately caused.

Per our own Central Statistics Office, Ireland contributed 12.8 tonnes of CO2 per capita. From the same page, you can see that this puts us third highest within the EU in terms of CO2 emissions per person. This is also well above the EU average (8.8 tonnes per capita).

dense wrote: »

I think we should just move on if you cant or wont do any more than repeat what you've said without being able to demonstrate your claims of the contribution (disproportionate or other) you say Irish people have had on global warming and I really don't want to be accused of being unfair to you.

If Ireland is contributing more per person than most other EU states, and more than the average EU individual, it means we are disproportionately contributing to CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are the primary contributing factor to global warming. If we are disproprotionately vomiting out CO2, then we are also disproprotionately contributing to global warming.

Saying anything else is being misleading - intentionally or otherwise.

EDIT: I see you have actually been given these statistics before, and I was wrong in giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had simply not been shown them. It appears you simply have no intention of engaging with the information put before you.

Macha

dense wrote: »

Stop.

Stop putting these backward corrupt cesspits on pedastals just because they have a begging bowl out looking for money on the back of highly dubious claims about being imminently washed away due to climate change.


According to the Marshall Islands 2015 Human Rights Report, the "most significant human rights problems included prison conditions, chronic government corruption, and chronic domestic violence" and other human rights problems included "child abuse, sex trafficking, and lack of legal provisions protecting workers' ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Marshall_Islands

Contrary to popular opinion and islander's fake claims, research shows that island land areas are increasing globally, even with all that melting ice.

https://m.phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

"Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land - 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) - than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).

"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart."

"We're were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking."

Climate change is now apparently creating more land than sea level rise is taking.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100

Which is all very inconvenient for those claiming islands are vanishing due to climate change.

I'm sorry? A county has to be crime free in order to engage in climate diplomacy? Utterly bizarre perspective and a total red herring. You're getting desperate.

As for their dubious claims, have you read the IPCC’s 1.5C report? The assertions are coming from them, ie climate scientists.

Anyway, your post entirely misses the point I was making that just because a country is small, it doesn't mean they can't have an impact on global climate politics - or action.

dense

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'

You ignoring the CSO figures posted multiple times does not mean it has noot been posted.

I did not lie, I simply said you edited my post and you're own quote shows you did. You didn't change words about or anything like that but you did break a single sentence of mine into two separate parts and inserted commas which I cerianly had not typed. And that is something I will point out if it happens. It's just a personal thing that I feel is poor etiquette, and I wouldn't insert commas into someone else's sentences or split them up, as I dont presume to have their prior consent to do so.

Now, I have read the CSO reports and linked to them previously in a different thread, so I am familiar with them.

The CSO does not show what proportion of the observed 0.9°C warming is attributable to Ireland, nor does it indicate what proportion of global warming can be expected to be prevented if we here in Ireland were to cease using fossil fuels as our primary energy sources.

Any claims that it does would be disingenuous.

It does contain a lot of other useful information though, particularly regarding our overall energy consumption and the huge gap that will need to be filled by an alternative reliable, renewable and sustainable energy source if we are to try to rapidly transition off of fossil fuels.



I expect that is what the IPCC is referring to when it declared that all aspects of society will require unprecedented changes in order to prevent a rise of 1.5°C .

We will have a chance to democratically show if we want desire these changes when Fine Gael outlines the impacts these changes will have on society in order to prevent them being accused of being in denial of climate change as per the thread title.

cgcsb

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Ireland is pretty average in terms of developed European economies at 7 tonnes per person in 2017, we're nearly twice Sweden but less than Germany and Netherlands while half that of the USA/Canada

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map

I'd question the accuracy of that. Ireland is 7.314 yet Norway is 9.271. How is that possible. Norways electricity grid is 100% renewable based on hydro power. The Cities have highly developed public transport. Oslo has 8 electric commuter rail lines, 5 metro lines, 6 tram lines, good cycling infrastructure and plethora of bus based options all topped off with fully integrated ticketing and extremely cheap fares and the City is smaller than Dublin. Norway is banning cars from the capital and will ban fuel based cars from the entire country in 10 years. District heating is widespread and super efficient. Norway also doesn't have much of a farming industry. How can Ireland have a lower carbon output per head?

demfad

dense wrote: »

Stop.

Contrary to popular opinion and islander's fake claims, research shows that island land areas are increasing globally, even with all that melting ice.

https://m.phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

Your claim is fake: From your link.

The Auckland team says climate change remains one of the major threats to low-lying island nations.

dense

Dytalus wrote: »

Per our own Central Statistics Office, Ireland contributed 12.8 tonnes of CO2 per capita. From the same page, you can see that this puts us third highest within the EU in terms of CO2 emissions per person. This is also well above the EU average (8.8 tonnes per capita).



If Ireland is contributing more per person than most other EU states, and more than the average EU individual, it means we are disproportionately contributing to CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are the primary contributing factor to global warming. If we are disproprotionately vomiting out CO2, then we are also disproprotionately contributing to global warming.

Saying anything else is being misleading - intentionally or otherwise.

EDIT: I see you have actually been given these statistics before, and I was wrong in giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had simply not been shown them. It appears you simply have no intention of engaging with the information put before you.

There's nothing to "engage" with!

They are stats that don't have any context if you cannot contextualise the proportion of global warming they are being said to have caused.

They are numbers but all they show is that Ireland has a certain CO2 per capita.

There is no point in trying to ascribe value to isolated statistics which do not demonstrate what affect Ireland will have on preventing global warming if it decides to ditch fossil fuels.

We can even repeat the statistics from morning to night if it makes people feel better.

No one is denying that the statistic exists, nor can anyone demonstrate the alleged affect they have had on global warming.

We can gloss over the actual specifics of what we think we are trying to achieve by eliminating our CO2 emissions here if you think that is the best course.

dense

demfad wrote: »

Your claim is fake: From your link.

Did you expect the climate scientists to say that climate change was no longer a threat?


Climate change has always threatened coastal regions and always will.
The difference now is that during this era of man made climate change coastal areas have been observed to be increasing in tandem with rising global emissions.



"We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world," said Dr Baart.

"We're were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking."

FreudianSlippers

dense wrote: »

I did not lie, I simply said you edited my post and you're own quote shows you did. You didn't change words about or anything like that but you did break a single sentence of mine into two separate parts and inserted commas which I cerianly had not typed. And that is something I will point out if it happens. It's just a personal thing that I feel is poor etiquette, and I wouldn't insert commas into someone else's sentences or split them up, as I dont presume to have their prior consent to do so.

You didn't type the comma into the middle of "you're" [sic] sentence? Another blatant untruth - I quoted your exact sentence twice... show me where I inserted a comma you didn't type.

I didn't "edit out the second half of [your] sentence" I broke it down into two parts given it was actually two questions; that's how the word "and" works.

You're grasping at straws here.

dense

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You didn't type the comma into the middle of "you're" [sic] sentence? Another blatant untruth - I quoted your exact sentence twice... show me where I inserted a comma you didn't type.

I didn't "edit out the second half of [your] sentence" I broke it down into two parts given it was actually two questions; that's how the word "and" works.

You're grasping at straws here.

You are correct, I had inserted the comma where you split my sentence in two.
I apologise for being wrong and thinking that you had inserted it there.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Just to be clear, a discussion on whether man made climate change is real is beyond the remit of this forum. For the purposes of this thread, it's real. Please use an appropriate forum to discuss whether or not it is happening.

blanch152

cgcsb wrote: »

I'd question the accuracy of that. Ireland is 7.314 yet Norway is 9.271. How is that possible. Norways electricity grid is 100% renewable based on hydro power. The Cities have highly developed public transport. Oslo has 8 electric commuter rail lines, 5 metro lines, 6 tram lines, good cycling infrastructure and plethora of bus based options all topped off with fully integrated ticketing and extremely cheap fares and the City is smaller than Dublin. Norway is banning cars from the capital and will ban fuel based cars from the entire country in 10 years. District heating is widespread and super efficient. Norway also doesn't have much of a farming industry. How can Ireland have a lower carbon output per head?

Oil

blanch152

dense wrote: »

You probably meant to say third highest in the EU in your last line there?
Or maybe you meant the reader would understand it to mean in the world?

Regardless of that error, you are now effectively pleading to have your assertion taken as fact.
You have now made your claim four times.

But simple repetition does not make it any more effective.

What is the contribution that you are claiming Irish people have caused?
You cannot simply invent a construct such as claiming that "Ireland has disproportionately contributed to global warming" of 0.9°C if you are unable to provide any evidence to demonstrate the portion of global warming that you are claiming we have disproportionately caused.

Do you accept that you're not making much of an effort to demonstrate the effect of what you're claiming?

Are you positive that this is not just something that you have heard or came across somwhere and liked the sound of, without applying any critical analysis to it?

If that is the case, just put it down to experience; many intelligent people swallow sloganeering which has been carefully crafted by climate activists.

I think we should just move on if you cant or wont do any more than repeat what you've said without being able to demonstrate your claims of the contribution (disproportionate or other) you say Irish people have had on global warming and I really don't want to be accused of being unfair to you.

The absolute level of contribution doesn't matter when you are discussing the proportional level of contribution and whether this is disproportionate.

As I pointed out in my last post, which you ignored, I could be talking about Denis O'Brien disproportionally contributing instead of Ireland. Equally I could be talking about the US or China and whether they are proportionally contributing. How much of the 0.9 degrees, or whatever number, is irrelevant. That is a simple mathematical proposition.

You continually either misunderstand or misrepresent my point and are trying to conflate it into something else.

MrMusician18

Per capital, Ireland has very high emissions but that's not to say the average Irish individual is excessively using carbon. From the figures I've given the average Irish person is directly responsible for less than a fifth of the total emissions, it's just we have a large, particularly carbon intensive industry here, farming.

If Ireland was just producing enough food to feed itself, it's likely we would be meeting our carbon goals. There is however a voracious global demand for meat and dairy, the excess of which we export. Farming and exports are interesting, Irish farming is relatively low carbon compared to models in other countries. By producing food for these countries it means that they produce much less carbon, essentially transferring it to us.

In any case, carbon taxes should not be directed at the individual householder but industry in the first instance. The proposed policy path will see individuals and households make big sacrifices but the country will still fail to meet the climate goals anyway.

The idea of a carbon dividend is interesting however.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Just to be clear, a discussion on whether man made climate change is real is beyond the remit of this forum. For the purposes of this thread, it's real. Please use an appropriate forum to discuss whether or not it is happening.

Off topic post deleted.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

The absolute level of contribution doesn't matter when you are discussing the proportional level of contribution and whether this is disproportionate.

Ireland's "disproportionate/proportionate contribution to global warming" is something you introduced and now you're saying the contribution that it makes to global warming doesn't matter.

If it doesn't matter why make it into an issue?

Dytalus

MrMusician18 wrote: »

In any case, carbon taxes should not be directed at the individual householder but industry in the first instance. The proposed policy path will see individuals and households make big sacrifices but the country will still fail to meet the climate goals anyway.

The idea of a carbon dividend is interesting however.

If you direct the carbon taxes toward the industries responsible, then there's nothing stopping them from passing the extra expenses on towards the consumer. A dividend might alleviate it, and if you could incentivise energy providers to give cheaper rates for renewable sourced power it would get a few customers to shift providers. People tend to respond better to being given a chance to save money if you offer them something cheaper. Making their current COL is liable to just make them angry (see: France).

We should try and avoid a carbon tax that hits consumers - like on petrol, for example. Even if, like the sugar tax it should (in theory) push consumers to find alternatives to save money. The problem is it unjustly punishes people who might not have alternatives. You can always just buy a different drink, or cut out soft drinks altogether, to avoid the sugar tax. But someone who uses their car to commute to work or college can't just...not do that.

I'm fortunate enough that I can cycle, walk, or use public transport. But a close friend of mine has a very long commute to work, and he's already waking at 6.30 to get to work on time. To get public transport he'd have to be waking even earlier. He can't afford to get a hybrid or EV, as much as he wants one to save on petrol. If the government brought in a carbon tax, he has no reasonable way to avoid it - moving closer to Dublin isn't an option for him for at least another 18 months, possible even longer.

dense

cgcsb wrote: »

I'd question the accuracy of that. Ireland is 7.314 yet Norway is 9.271. How is that possible. Norways electricity grid is 100% renewable based on hydro power. The Cities have highly developed public transport. Oslo has 8 electric commuter rail lines, 5 metro lines, 6 tram lines, good cycling infrastructure and plethora of bus based options all topped off with fully integrated ticketing and extremely cheap fares and the City is smaller than Dublin. Norway is banning cars from the capital and will ban fuel based cars from the entire country in 10 years. District heating is widespread and super efficient. Norway also doesn't have much of a farming industry. How can Ireland have a lower carbon output per head?

The one that I find most interesting is Luxembourg's.
It has one of the highest per capita Co2 emissions in Europe but it's "fuel tourists", motorists from surrounding countries travelling to purchase fuel there, are often cited as one of the reasons it's per capita figure is so high:

However, there are still problems in connection with CO2 emissions, especially as Luxembourg's economy is the most carbon-intensive in the OECD in per capita terms even though this is partly due to the sales of fuel to non-residents.[1]

But of course that fuel is burned elsewhere so the emissions derived from it can not also be Luxembourg's, yet, they are counted as being Luxembourg's.
Which doesn't make sense.

So there is clearly some double counting going on there.

It would be interesting to know what level it is occurring on a global scale.

And using the accepted logic that Luxembourg is somehow being "caught out" by neighbouring countries buying fuel from it, and it being responsible for the emissions from said fuel, surely whoever we're buying our oil and coal from should be responsible for our emissions from it?

Maybe that's why those oil producing countries have such a huge per capita figure, meaning there's some serious double counting going on......

James Brown

dense wrote: »

The one that I find most interesting is Luxembourg's.
It has one of the highest per capita Co2 emissions in Europe but it's "fuel tourists", motorists from surrounding countries travelling to purchase fuel there, are often cited as one of the reasons it's per capita figure is so high:

However, there are still problems in connection with CO2 emissions, especially as Luxembourg's economy is the most carbon-intensive in the OECD in per capita terms even though this is partly due to the sales of fuel to non-residents.[1]

But of course that fuel is burned elsewhere so the emissions derived from it can not also be Luxembourg's, yet, they are counted as being Luxembourg's.
Which doesn't make sense.

So there is clearly some double counting going on there.

It would be interesting to know what level it is occurring on a global scale.

And using the accepted logic that Luxembourg is somehow being "caught out" by neighbouring countries buying fuel from it, and it being responsible for the emissions from said fuel, surely whoever we're buying our oil and coal from should be responsible for our emissions from it?

Maybe that's why those oil producing countries have such a huge per capita figure, meaning there's some serious double counting going on......

Would it not work out quite simply, that any emissions being based on fuel sales couldn't be double counted? If sold in Luxemboug, how could the same sales be counted in another region?

blanch152

dense wrote: »

The one that I find most interesting is Luxembourg's.
It has one of the highest per capita Co2 emissions in Europe but it's "fuel tourists", motorists from surrounding countries travelling to purchase fuel there, are often cited as one of the reasons it's per capita figure is so high:

However, there are still problems in connection with CO2 emissions, especially as Luxembourg's economy is the most carbon-intensive in the OECD in per capita terms even though this is partly due to the sales of fuel to non-residents.[1]

But of course that fuel is burned elsewhere so the emissions derived from it can not also be Luxembourg's, yet, they are counted as being Luxembourg's.
Which doesn't make sense.

So there is clearly some double counting going on there.

It would be interesting to know what level it is occurring on a global scale.

And using the accepted logic that Luxembourg is somehow being "caught out" by neighbouring countries buying fuel from it, and it being responsible for the emissions from said fuel, surely whoever we're buying our oil and coal from should be responsible for our emissions from it?

Maybe that's why those oil producing countries have such a huge per capita figure, meaning there's some serious double counting going on......

It is nonsense to suggest that there is double-counting. If all countries are counting fuel sales towards their carbon emissions, then there is no double-counting.

For the oil-producing countries, it isn't the oil that they are producing that is subsequently used in other countries that produces the carbon emissions, but the energy used in extracting the oil.

Such simple answers to your questions are so obvious that it makes me wonder if your posts are designed to distract from the problem.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Would it not work out quite simply, that any emissions being based on fuel sales couldn't be double counted? If sold in Luxemboug, how could the same sales be counted in another region?

Fully agree with you, Matt.

Franz Von Peppercorn

dense wrote: »

Ireland's "disproportionate/proportionate contribution to global warming" is something you introduced and now you're saying the contribution that it makes to global warming doesn't matter.

If it doesn't matter why make it into an issue?

I don't actually think you can't understand the arguments. He's talking about per capita emissions. Obviously there are fewer people in Ireland than elsewhere but all countries should be judged on per capita emissions.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Ireland's "disproportionate/proportionate contribution to global warming" is something you introduced and now you're saying the contribution that it makes to global warming doesn't matter.

If it doesn't matter why make it into an issue?

Again, please don't twist my words to mean something different from what I posted.

If you are discussing whether a single person's contribution is disproportionate, a small country's contribution is disproportionate, a large country's contribution is disproportionate or a particular industry's contribution is disproportionate, the absolute contribution of the single person, the small country, the large country or the particular industry is irrelevant.

To give a simple illustration of the rationale, imagine there are only two, just two countries in the world, one (China) with a population of 1 billion, and the other (Vatican City) with a population of 100. Imagine that China produces 55% of the carbon emissions causing global warming, while the Vatican City produces 45% of the emissions. Now which country is disproportionately contributing to the problem? Should the 1 Billion in China make sacrifices or should the 100 in the Vatican City make sacrifices? Which is the fairest outcome?

dense

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Would it not work out quite simply, that any emissions being based on fuel sales couldn't be double counted? If sold in Luxemboug, how could the same sales be counted in another region?

Because they are not emissions that are being emitted in Luxembourg.
Therefore they shouldn't be counted or treated as if they are.


If we are to go by fuel sales, would it follow that the countries that are selling the fuel to Luxembourg are responsible for Luxembourg's emissions?

Macha

dense wrote: »

Because they are not emissions that are being emitted in Luxembourg.
Therefore they shouldn't be counted or treated as if they are.


If we are to go by fuel sales, would it follow that the countries that are selling the fuel to Luxembourg are responsible for Luxembourg's emissions?

Global carbon accounting is based on production. There are endless discussions about changing it to consumption, and these debates have been going on for years.

At the end of the day, it's a distraction. Everyone needs to decarbonise as fast as possible. End of.

James Brown

dense wrote: »

Because they are not emissions that are being emitted in Luxembourg.
Therefore they shouldn't be counted or treated as if they are.


If we are to go by fuel sales, would it follow that the countries that are selling the fuel to Luxembourg are responsible for Luxembourg's emissions?

I was picking up on your claim of double counting fuel sales.
And yes, I'm sure there's many ways of looking at the data, should we hit the supplier, the user, both in equal measure? There is however, no double counting in the manner you suggested.

L1011

We sell quite a bit of fuel that crosses the border immediately also, as it happens. Not going to be as much of a problem as a tiny, cheap country surrounded by big, dearer ones of course.

blanch152

L1011 wrote: »

We sell quite a bit of fuel that crosses the border immediately also, as it happens. Not going to be as much of a problem as a tiny, cheap country surrounded by big, dearer ones of course.

A lot of the fuel that crosses the border here isn't counted by anyone.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, please don't twist my words to mean something different from what I posted.

You have written pages about what you have termed "Ireland's disproportionate contribution to global warming", a contribution that you can neither quantify, cannot explain the affect it is having on global warming and cannot explain the effect upon global warming that is to be expected by Ireland eliminating it's "disproporationate" emissions.

You then write that the absolute contribution from these emissions (that clearly mattered greatly before now) doesn't matter.

What are you talking about? The contribution to global warming or something else? What absolute contribution doesn't matter?

With the greatest respect, I am not Keith Barry and I can only go on what you write.

blanch152 wrote: »

If you are discussing whether a single person's contribution is disproportionate, a small country's contribution is disproportionate, a large country's contribution is disproportionate or a particular industry's contribution is disproportionate, the absolute contribution of the single person, the small country, the large country or the particular industry is irrelevant.

Not relevant to what? Global warming?
Again, this needs to be more specific; what exactly is irrelevant to what and how you come to the conclusion.

blanch152 wrote: »

To give a simple illustration of the rationale, imagine there are only two, just two countries in the world, one (China) with a population of 1 billion, and the other (Vatican City) with a population of 100. Imagine that China produces 55% of the carbon emissions causing global warming, while the Vatican City produces 45% of the emissions. Now which country is disproportionately contributing to the problem? Should the 1 Billion in China make sacrifices or should the 100 in the Vatican City make sacrifices? Which is the fairest outcome?

The country that has the largest emissions in that scenario, China, is obviously disproportionately "contributing to the problem" because the country with lower emissions is emitting proportionately less.

Simple logic dictates that if Vatican City was to completely eliminate it's emissions, China's would become even more disproportionate to Vatican City's, at 100% of all emissions.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

The country that has the largest emissions in that scenario, China, is obviously disproportionately "contributing to the problem" because the country with lower emissions is emitting proportionately less.

Simple logic dictates that if Vatican City was to completely eliminate it's emissions, China's would become even more disproportionate to Vatican City's, at 100% of all emissions.

Well, you are wrong.

In my example, China is contributing more to the problem, but the Vatican City is contributing disproportionately more to the problem.

They are two different things.