Climate Action Plan

Harvey Weinstein

Deleted User wrote: »

The US is facing astronomical costs - in the hundreds of billions of dollars - if it wants to protect existing coastal communities from flooding. What's more likely, however, is that most of these communities will be evacuated and the billions will be invested in defending more populated areas like Lower Manhattan. Disturbing research published in the NYT:

With More Storms and Rising Seas, Which U.S. Cities Should Be Saved First? (19 June 2019)

What places in Ireland are going to be similarly threatened?

Why are banks still giving out mortgages in all these coastal cities that are predicted to be underwater in 12 years time?

YFlyer

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

The majority of cows here are grass fed, they're basically carbon neutral.

Its methane they're exhaling.

YFlyer

Alena Loud Tantrum wrote: »

Will cost less in the long run as you become energy independent

Will it really? In Spain the energy companies wanted people using solar panels to be taxed.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

The US is facing astronomical costs - in the hundreds of billions of dollars - if it wants to protect existing coastal communities from flooding. What's more likely, however, is that most of these communities will be evacuated and the billions will be invested in defending more populated areas like Lower Manhattan.

I live on the east coast of the US. Years ago I believed Al Gore when he guaranteed the oceans would rise dramatically in short order. So I bought a home on a mountainside hoping for beachfront property a long time before now. I'm still waiting!

And in 2017 the US pulled out of the Paris climate change agreement. Against all ‘conventional wisdom’ the Climate Action Tracker just improved its assessment of the United States expected performance citing a continuing reduction of carbon in the electricity sector. We knew it could be done without the international draconian actions taken to destroy the US economy.

Thrill

reg114 wrote: »

Norway has a similar population to Ireland and is the worlds leader when it comes to electric car adoption. 60% of their cars are electric

Norway has 12,000 electric charge points , Ireland has 1100.

We are not the same as Norway. Norway has a 1 trillion sovereign wealth fund which it made from selling......OIL. They can easily afford it.

Luxxis

ednwireland wrote: »

dublin, cork, waterford, limerick, galway belfast, pretty much every major town on the coast in ireland
http://flood.firetree.net/

even a 1m rise in sea levels will be pretty devastating (my house is fine upto 60m so just need to buy a boat)

If it rises 6m i'm going to have a seafront property. Think I'll but a Diesel

DEFTLEFTHAND

notobtuse wrote: »

I live on the east coast of the US. Years ago I believed Al Gore when he guaranteed the oceans would rise dramatically in short order. So I bought a home on a mountainside hoping for beachfront property a long time before now. I'm still waiting!

And in 2017 the US pulled out of the Paris climate change agreement. Against all ‘conventional wisdom’ the Climate Action Tracker just improved its assessment of the United States expected performance citing a continuing reduction of carbon in the electricity sector. We knew it could be done without the international draconian actions taken to destroy the US economy.

I don't think Gore was being entirely serious in all fairness to him. He was just having a joke.

No financial institution is going to lend in relation to beach side property and no Insurance company is going to cover them if their destruction is imminent.

Their risk assessment departments wouldn't allow it. Always pay attention to what banks and Insurance firms do.

notobtuse

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I don't think Gore was being entirely serious in all fairness to him. He was just having a joke.

No financial institution is going to lend in relation to beach side property and no Insurance company is going to cover them if their destruction is imminent.

Their risk assessment departments wouldn't allow it. Always pay attention to what banks and Insurance firms do.

Actually, Gore was dead serious. He even made a movie about it. I agree with you that no one in their right mind would lend or insure a property if its destruction was imminent. But the cost of beachfront property is running at an all-time high here in the US, and insurance companies continue to insure them.

Dakota Dan

notobtuse wrote: »

Actually, Gore was dead serious. He even made a movie about it. I agree with you that no one in their right mind would lend or insure a property if its destruction was imminent. But the cost of beachfront property is running at an all-time high here in the US, and insurance companies continue to insure them.

Pity he didn’t take his own advice then as he bought 3 beach properties after spouting that nonsense.

Jimmy Garlic

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wish people just realised that humans and consumption means climate change is inevitable.

You can't expect us to consume the same amount of resources yet not impact the planet.

All this talk about sustainability is fluff! What was it they said, we need to act to keep the temperature increase below 2 degree a year or something? It's not like the freezing point of ice gets higher every year so how is a temperature increase of any kind not killing the planet??

You do know that the planet has been hotter than it is now in the past. It's still here.

SafeSurfer

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wish people just realised that humans and consumption means climate change is inevitable.

You can't expect us to consume the same amount of resources yet not impact the planet.

All this talk about sustainability is fluff! What was it they said, we need to act to keep the temperature increase below 2 degree a year or something? It's not like the freezing point of ice gets higher every year so how is a temperature increase of any kind not killing the planet??

Do you not think climate change is inevitable even without humans and consumption?

YFlyer

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Pity he didn’t take his own advice then as he bought 3 beach properties after spouting that nonsense.

What was the height above the then sea level?

Boggles

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

You do know that the planet has been hotter than it is now in the past. It's still here.

Yeah but over 99% of what lived on the planet isn't.

Which is the important point.

Blueshoe

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah but over 99% of what lived on the planet isn't.

Which is the important point.

Species die out and are replaced or can't be sustained
This climate change rubbish is the new religion for do gooders and gob****es

Boggles

Blueshoe wrote: »

Species die out and are replaced or can't be sustained
This climate change rubbish is the new religion for do gooders and gob****es

Well, you can't argue with that level of science.

s7ryf3925pivug

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It was supposed to be in place by the end of the year but has been delayed because threat of legal action.

1100 people die prematurely in Ireland due to poor air quality, primarily due to particulates. Moves to retrofit homes, upgrade heating and move away from petrol/diesel cars are a good thing for health, even if you don't want to address climate change.

Cnuts.

Wonder if legal action on behalf of people breathing sh!te could be a thing - to push it through rather than profit financially. I'll ask on the legal forum maybe.

Should be a petition at least. Somebody should start one if there isn't one.

The rationale for the legal threat is that they aren't banning other smoky fuels like wood and peat. Simple answer is to ban peat and enforce the latter to be burnt in sushi a way as not to generate much smoke (ie dry wood in high efficiency stove).

...the thing about banning wood is that wood pellet CHS are probably the greenest options available to people in older houses which are not well insulated enough for a heat pump to be effective. High efficiency wood stoves are purported as being carbon neutral also.

SirGerryAdams

Lads storming the coal plants in Germany trying to shut them down.

I wonder what they'd do if the electricity to their house went off, how would they survive?

Thelonious Monk

https://www.leinsterexpress.ie/video/news/426113/pollution-fish-kill-in-laois-river-rises-to-thousands.html

Another river destroyed. Good old silage.

Jimmy Garlic

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.leinsterexpress.ie/video/news/426113/pollution-fish-kill-in-laois-river-rises-to-thousands.html

Another river destroyed. Good old silage.

Shur there are councils still pumping raw sewage into rivers from overburdened treatment plants that have had no significant infrastructural upgrades since the 1940s in some cases. Yet they will all bleat on about climate change like broken records.

SirGerryAdams

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cement-produces-more-pollution-trucks-050017640.html

Cement produces more emissions than all the trucks in the world.

Building a house is highly damaging to the environment yet no one is calling for restrictions on population growth.

ednwireland

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cement-produces-more-pollution-trucks-050017640.html

Cement produces more emissions than all the trucks in the world.

Building a house is highly damaging to the environment yet no one is calling for restrictions on population growth.

dont forget the 60 lorry loads of concrete that go into the base of one of those windmills.

Jimmy Garlic

ednwireland wrote: »

dont forget the 60 lorry loads of concrete that go into the base of one of those windmills.

And each turbine has about a 20 year lifespan all going well before it's off to the scrappers and a new one has to be manufactured to replace it.

Jimmy Garlic

ednwireland wrote: »

dont forget the 60 lorry loads of concrete that go into the base of one of those windmills.

And each turbine has about a 20 year lifespan all going well before it's off to the scrappers and a new one has to be manufactured to replace it.

Thelonious Monk

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

And each turbine has about a 20 year lifespan all going well before it's off to the scrappers and a new one has to be manufactured to replace it.

So what... just keep burning turf and coal?

Thelonious Monk

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

no one is calling for restrictions on population growth.

It's political suicide, so for the time being there's no point even discussing it. We just need to figure out a way to be more energy efficient and pollute less.

Greentopia

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Shur there are councils still pumping raw sewage into rivers from overburdened treatment plants that have had no significant infrastructural upgrades since the 1940s in some cases. Yet they will all bleat on about climate change like broken records.

Or non-existent sewage treatment plants. Arklow for example has none and dumps raw sewage straight into the Avoca river. You can see the outflow pipes and the sewage coming out on what should be a beautiful stretch of river. They've been waiting over 20 years for one but objections keep holding it up. Lovely on a hot summer's day crossing the bridge there as the stench of raw sewage comes up from the river

Tourists have remarked on it too. The water quality is dire there and most people who care about their health drink bottled or spring water. This in 2019 in a supposedly wealthy 1st world country.

Thelonious Monk

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Shur there are councils still pumping raw sewage into rivers from overburdened treatment plants that have had no significant infrastructural upgrades since the 1940s in some cases. Yet they will all bleat on about climate change like broken records.

What councils are bleating on about climate change? The no 1 cause of pollution in our waterways is Ag anyway.

Greentopia

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cement-produces-more-pollution-trucks-050017640.html

Cement produces more emissions than all the trucks in the world.

Building a house is highly damaging to the environment yet no one is calling for restrictions on population growth.

Don't build portland cement houses?

Wood, cob, stone, straw bale, all produce far less emissions and are more sustainable.

And there are plenty of people calling for restrictions on population growth, just not politicians. Yet. It will happen though.

BrokenArrows

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wish people just realised that humans and consumption means climate change is inevitable.

You can't expect us to consume the same amount of resources yet not impact the planet.

All this talk about sustainability is fluff! What was it they said, we need to act to keep the temperature increase below 2 degree a year or something? It's not like the freezing point of ice gets higher every year so how is a temperature increase of any kind not killing the planet??

Sustainability is about replacing the stuff that we take. ie. Replace trees, recycle metals and plastics etc. You cant endless create things without a sustainable model. Otherwise you will run out of oil to create plastics or trees required for wood etc.

The 2% number is a goal. Its not saying 2% is good, its saying we should really try and not increase he temperature by that much over the next 30 years (not each year). Its been determined that more than 2% would have very bad consequences. 2% is still bad, but still someway manageable.

s7ryf3925pivug

Colton Scrawny Dude wrote: »

Cnuts.

Wonder if legal action on behalf of people breathing sh!te could be a thing - to push it through rather than profit financially. I'll ask on the legal forum maybe.

Should be a petition at least. Somebody should start one if there isn't one.

Legal proceedings are being undertaken against the state to try to force a responsible attitude to dealing with pollution. The litigators encourage people to sign up stating they support the case, - which is kinda like a petition, but is maybe also different in terms of what direct effect is being looked for.

https://www.climatecaseireland.ie/