The entire Green argument for Ireland decreasing its C02 emissions is bogus

Fred Cryton

Their entire argument for decreasing emissions (7% annually is now sacrosanct) is completely based on a misunderstanding (or deliberate misunderstanding) of statistics.


I've made this point before but Colm McCarthy does well in the Indo:


https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/climate-and-covid-19-heed-no-borders-39194001.html


The EU per capita emissions statistics are flawed for two major reasons:


1) They include agriculture. This is a production activity. Ireland produces good produce, and essentially the Greens want to penalize us for this. This would be equivalent to penalizing Saudi Arabia because they produce a lot of oil. Incidentally, oil production is not included in Saudi Arabia's C02 emissions. The C02 emissions of the oil produce of Saudi ARabia is correctly allocated to the countires who actually consume the oil. This is how it should be done. Consumption, not production. Any reduction in Irish production will simply be shifted to other countries, because we certainly won't be eating less.


2) Agriculture is included in the EU stats but there's no taking account of population density. Essentially the EU punishes countries with low population density, because they will have a large amount of agricultural land relative to fewer people. This is madness because surely the Greens want fewer consumers in the world and more open spaces so we should be rewarding low population density!!!


The overall point is little clean and Green Ireland is going to absolutely castrate itself to get the Greens into government on the basis of a complete lie and subtle misunderstanding of the numbers.

Pkiernan

Its Green Guilt, and plays well to left wing student types in Ireland.

Funny how I didnt meet any Greens when our village organised a litter clear up.

My neighbours and I were pulling discarded rubbish from ditches, while the Greenies were all busy saving the planet by tweeting about carbon...

Put a 50c Carbon tax on Twitter and TikTok instead.

Thelonious Monk

The plan is to move away from oil as much as we can though. We signed up to the Paris Agreement which agreed to a big decrease in CO2 emissions. I'm pretty sure the Greens weren't leading our government when we signed up to this. Is it wrong for the Greens to expect commitments made by governments to be realised?

Fred Cryton

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The plan is to move away from oil as much as we can though. We signed up to the Paris Agreement which agreed to a big decrease in CO2 emissions. I'm pretty sure the Greens weren't leading our government when we signed up to this. Is it wrong for the Greens to expect commitments made by governments to be realised?

99% of all politicians would fail to understand the statistical points i made in the OP.



The point is the EU per capita C02 emissions is flawed as a metric to be used, for the reasons outlined.



So they would all want to wise up and quit the Green virtue signalling

n97 mini

The emissions from producing Irish beef occur in Ireland, not where the beef is consumed. Saudi Arabia doesn't burn the oil it produces, other countries do. Hence they get the emissions. At first it doesn't seem fair, but there isn't really an alternative.

Long term Irish farmers have to diversify.

SomeGuyCalledMi

Pkiernan wrote: »

Its Green Guilt, and plays well to left wing student types in Ireland.

Funny how I didnt meet any Greens when our village organised a litter clear up.

My neighbours and I were pulling discarded rubbish from ditches, while the Greenies were all busy saving the planet by tweeting about carbon...

Put a 50c Carbon tax on Twitter and TikTok instead.

Can you explain what you mean my this Pkiernan. Do you think its only Green party voters that want us to reduce green house gas emisions?

Did you really ask everyone on the letter clean up what party they vote for?

Fair play to you for cleaning up rubish and telling us all about it on the internet while other people tweeted. I would now like to point out to you that you are doing exactly the same thing.

50c tax on boards posts too maybe?

Harry Palmr

1) They include agriculture. This is a production activity. Ireland produces good produce, and essentially the Greens want to penalize us for this. This would be equivalent to penalizing Saudi Arabia because they produce a lot of oil. Incidentally, oil production is not included in Saudi Arabia's C02 emissions. The C02 emissions of the oil produce of Saudi ARabia is correctly allocated to the countries who actually consume the oil. This is how it should be done. Consumption, not production. Any reduction in Irish production will simply be shifted to other countries, because we certainly won't be eating less.

The Greens believe the source needs tackling as much as the end user market as the pollution is HERE. That not a misunderstanding its policy. The idea is that we produce cleaner not that we export dirt.

Truthvader

Oil is running out so the problem will solve itself without nannying by Greens. Wheres sleazy Gormley these days? Enjoying his pension I'd say. Bike not out of the shed for years. A party of spoofers and busy body nannies

Thelonious Monk

We had a carbon tax increase the other day, I suppose that was the Green's fault as well?

_Brian

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The plan is to move away from oil as much as we can though. We signed up to the Paris Agreement which agreed to a big decrease in CO2 emissions. I'm pretty sure the Greens weren't leading our government when we signed up to this. Is it wrong for the Greens to expect commitments made by governments to be realised?

New evidence has come to light on the CO2 absorbed into soils growing grass. Teagasc have a knowledges this plus hedgerow absorption hasn’t been included.

When these are accounted for agriculture has already done its part.

C02 emissions from livestock are probably 10-12% of total where fossil fuel consumption is about 60-65%

We all know where the changes need to be made but there is a Vegan secondary agenda to blacken livestock farming to satisfy their own emotionally crippled belief structures. That’s the real truth !

washman3

Truthvader wrote: »

Oil is running out so the problem will solve itself without nannying by Greens. Wheres sleazy Gormley these days? Enjoying his pension I'd say. Bike not out of the shed for years. A party of spoofers and busy body nannies

Probably 'suffering' during the lockdown in his luxury villa in the South of France while bursting his a##e laughing at the misguided clowns who voted for him and those still 'carrying on the cause'

Thelonious Monk

_Brian wrote: »

New evidence has come to light on the CO2 absorbed into soils growing grass. Teagasc have a knowledges this plus hedgerow absorption hasn’t been included

The way things are going we may not have many hedgerows left in a while, video after video online of destroyed hedgerows lately from people pouring chemicals all over them, chemicals which could end up in water supplies.
Co2 might absorb in grass but we still need to rewild some of the land, it shouldn't be just grass and barren uplands, we have a biodiversity crisis in Ireland, and grazing rights need to go imo.

jackboy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The way things are going we may not have many hedgerows left in a while, video after video online of destroyed hedgerows lately from people pouring chemicals all over them, chemicals which could end up in water supplies.

Is this not mainly roadside hedges sprayed by the council’s though. Very easy for the government to fix that.

Harry Palmr

Truthvader wrote: »

Oil is running out so the problem will solve itself without nannying by Greens. Wheres sleazy Gormley these days? Enjoying his pension I'd say. Bike not out of the shed for years. A party of spoofers and busy body nannies

People have been saying this since it was first discovered!

In 1980 642 billion barrels were known to be in recoverable fields in 2018 that number was 1730 billion barrels

Thelonious Monk

jackboy wrote: »

Is this not mainly roadside hedges sprayed by the council’s though. Very easy for the government to fix that.

Farmers, councils, Iarnrod Eireann...


https://mobile.twitter.com/wildfullstop/status/1259414055980236800

Pkiernan

SomeGuyCalledMi wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean my this Pkiernan. Do you think its only Green party voters that want us to reduce green house gas emisions?

Did you really ask everyone on the letter clean up what party they vote for?

Fair play to you for cleaning up rubish and telling us all about it on the internet while other people tweeted. I would now like to point out to you that you are doing exactly the same thing.

50c tax on boards posts too maybe?

My point is that Irish greenies are all talk, no action.

Markcheese

n97 mini wrote: »

The emissions from producing Irish beef occur in Ireland, not where the beef is consumed. Saudi Arabia doesn't burn the oil it produces, other countries do. Hence they get the emissions. At first it doesn't seem fair, but there isn't really an alternative.

Long term Irish farmers have to diversify.

Into what exactly ? If the money is in diversification Irish farmers will move ....just telling them move or even hitting them with a stick ain't gonna work. .

Fred Cryton

n97 mini wrote: »

The emissions from producing Irish beef occur in Ireland, not where the beef is consumed. Saudi Arabia doesn't burn the oil it produces, other countries do. Hence they get the emissions. At first it doesn't seem fair, but there isn't really an alternative.

Long term Irish farmers have to diversify.

It doesn't seem fair, because it's not fair.


If they want to include agriculture, fine. Allocate the C02 emissions to the consumers.

Thelonious Monk

Fred Cryton wrote: »

It doesn't seem fair, because it's not fair.


If they want to include agriculture, fine. Allocate the C02 emissions to the consumers.

Life isn't fair

Fred Cryton

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Life isn't fair

So we're supposed to bend over for the Greens based on a statistical lie?

Markcheese

There's an awful lot we can do to reduce greenhouse gases , there's a hell of a lot farmers can do ...
But methane from livestock is a very divisive subject ...methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas but not very long lived (when compared to co2),so what's being released now is replacing what was released aprox 10 years ago ...ie. the methane from Irish cattle is not increasing in the atmosphere ...
Unlike co2,
Grasslands can ( not always ,but can ) absorb,and sequester large amounts of co2,

Shefwedfan

You do realize every party had a large section on climate change in all their manifesto, sorry I lie S.F. didn’t.

Why just mention the Green Party?

Thelonious Monk

Fred Cryton wrote: »

So we're supposed to bend over for the Greens based on a statistical lie?

We're supposed to greatly cut our emissions based on the Paris agreement that FG signed up for

Markcheese

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Life isn't fair

Are we talking about reducing greenhouse gases ,or just farmer bashing ?
(And if we're on the life's not fair bit ,farmers and rural dwellers have considerable political clout ,that's the way our political system works ,but there you go that's just the way it is .... We could have a whinge about it or ,get on with trying to reduce green house gases ..)

Shefwedfan

Fred Cryton wrote: »

So we're supposed to bend over for the Greens based on a statistical lie?

I don’t need the greens to ask me, I want to do it myself. Do you not want to leave a decent place for your children? Not have your kids dying with lungs diseases?

Shefwedfan

Also did you listen to any of the interviews with the Green Party? Or just rehashing some old stories which are no longer relevant

The only bit they mentioned in recent interview was some farmers going to organic which is the way the market is going anyway, someone else put on here 250 or something farmers applied for organic grants and only 50 got them

The rest was around
Public Transport - 100% makes sense
Solar PV - makes sense
Wind farms in ocean - makes sense
Connecting to Europe for power - makes sense
Rewet of peatlands - makes sense

The main point they made was not to point fingers, oh look Ian so green and that other person isn’t....I suggest you listen and come back....it was on Pat Kenny

SomeGuyCalledMi

Many farmers are beef farmers because that is what their father did and what they have done their whole lives.

But beef prices tell is there is no future in it. The average Irish family beef farm makes 10k a year!

Farmers need serious help to diversify.

Fred Cryton

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We're supposed to greatly cut our emissions based on the Paris agreement that FG signed up for

Which they shouldn't have, based on a flawed statistical anaysis as outlined in my OP.



FF and FG are only paying lip service to the Green agenda in order to win over the brainwashed youth. How many of those youngsters would be able to truly understand anything i wrote in the OP.

Shefwedfan

SomeGuyCalledMi wrote: »

Many farmers are beef farmers because that is what their father did and what they have done their whole lives.

But beef prices tell is there is no future in it. The average Irish family beef farm makes 10k a year!

Farmers need serious help to diversify.

2015 the government started to try help farmer move so this is not a new things

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/ireland/grants-scheme-launched-to-encourage-farmers-to-go-organic-325281.html

It was also reopened in 2018

Thelonious Monk

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Which they shouldn't have, based on a flawed statistical anaysis as outlined in my OP.



FF and FG are only paying lip service to the Green agenda in order to win over the brainwashed youth. How many of those youngsters would be able to truly understand anything i wrote in the OP.

You're making a lot of assumptions here about the population. I don't agree with what you're getting at anyway, just because we've less people doesn't mean we should have the island covered in farms and no nature. Every country needs to clean up its back yard and if that means producing less meat so be it, we shouldn't be worrying about where it might be produced if we don't do it.

_Brian

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We're supposed to greatly cut our emissions based on the Paris agreement that FG signed up for

Sticking by something when new scientific data contradicts it is cult behaviour.

We should always, always follow the best most current widely agreed science. Specifically weeding out paid for compromised “research” such as the EATLamcet report.

SomeGuyCalledMi

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Their entire argument for decreasing emissions (7% annually is now sacrosanct) is completely based on a misunderstanding (or deliberate misunderstanding) of statistics.


I've made this point before but Colm McCarthy does well in the Indo:


https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/climate-and-covid-19-heed-no-borders-39194001.html


The EU per capita emissions statistics are flawed for two major reasons:


1) They include agriculture. This is a production activity. Ireland produces good produce, and essentially the Greens want to penalize us for this. This would be equivalent to penalizing Saudi Arabia because they produce a lot of oil. Incidentally, oil production is not included in Saudi Arabia's C02 emissions. The C02 emissions of the oil produce of Saudi ARabia is correctly allocated to the countires who actually consume the oil. This is how it should be done. Consumption, not production. Any reduction in Irish production will simply be shifted to other countries, because we certainly won't be eating less.


2) Agriculture is included in the EU stats but there's no taking account of population density. Essentially the EU punishes countries with low population density, because they will have a large amount of agricultural land relative to fewer people. This is madness because surely the Greens want fewer consumers in the world and more open spaces so we should be rewarding low population density!!!


The overall point is little clean and Green Ireland is going to absolutely castrate itself to get the Greens into government on the basis of a complete lie and subtle misunderstanding of the numbers.

China could argue the same thing for all the iPhones and TVs they make for us.

Ireland is not going to castrate itself. Countries that have invested in renewable energy have created jobs and wealth.

About 6000 Irish people a year die from air pollution. And who knows how many tens of thousands get asthma or lung cancer for the same reason. The cost of taxpayers must be huge. Maybe we should be a country that tries to do something about this.

Shefwedfan

One of our big problems is the lack of trees in Ireland...even by planting tree it would help

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

Thelonious Monk

SomeGuyCalledMi wrote: »

China could argue the same thing for all the iPhones and TVs they make for us.

Exactly. That's why I hate the what about China and India argument. Who's fuelling all of their factories? Rich countries like us.

Thelonious Monk

Shefwedfan wrote: »

One of our big problems is the lack of trees in Ireland...even by planting tree it would help

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

We grew to 11% cover or something in the last 30 years but 8 or 9% of that is sitka spruce which is poisonous for the environment. So in reality we have some toxic tree farms and 2 or 3% natural tree cover.

Shefwedfan

I said this on the other Green bashing thread

We could actually turn the green agenda into a positive. We have some of the World leader in green energy. mainstream are one of the top companies who are irish owned but do little to nothing here. Kingsman etc are going green

If we could get below our requirements then we can sell our surplus Credit in a name your price and actually get money back instead of fines

I did say before and would say it now, before throwing out the Green 7% has anyone seen the full manifesto on how they will achieve?

Shefwedfan

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We grew to 11% cover or something in the last 30 years but 8 or 9% of that is sitka spruce which is poisonous for the environment. So in reality we have some toxic tree farms and 2 or 3% natural tree cover.

Exactly, why not grow traditional Irish trees, I know our area we got loads from county council and have planted all around, ash etc

Thelonious Monk

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Exactly, why not grow traditional Irish trees, I know our area we got loads from county council and have planted all around, ash etc

I have a big ash tree and rowan tree in my small front garden of a terrace house. Everyone else has paved most of their front gardens in the area and no trees. Even in cities people should be encouraged to plant them.

BarryD2

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We grew to 11% cover or something in the last 30 years but 8 or 9% of that is sitka spruce which is poisonous for the environment. So in reality we have some toxic tree farms and 2 or 3% natural tree cover.

Why do you like to shift the point? Sitka Spruce may increase acidity but this thread is about carbon and since Sitka grow very quickly, they are surely an excellent species if you want to put carbon into timber??? They are also very fine trees if allowed to mature, which is a different matter.

I don't like farmer bashing but I do find their protestations a bit wearisome. The national herd particularly in dairy increased substantially when quotas were abolished. Many farmers are indeed custodians of the land and conscious of environmental matters and their impacts but I invite anyone to take a tour of Google Earth and look at some of the industrial dairy farming that goes on. These are the big boys, the lobbyists for the market and the status quo or whatever suits their business model at any particular time.

jackboy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We grew to 11% cover or something in the last 30 years but 8 or 9% of that is sitka spruce which is poisonous for the environment. So in reality we have some toxic tree farms and 2 or 3% natural tree cover.

I haven’t heard the greens talk about tackling this. If they got into power and did nothing other than bring in a law that at least 50% of any plantation must be native, then they would be hugely successful for the environment.

It seems all their policies are just really vague notions rather than anything concrete.

Thelonious Monk

BarryD2 wrote: »

Why do you like to shift the point? Sitka Spruce may increase acidity but this thread is about carbon and since Sitka grow very quickly, they are surely an excellent species if you want to put carbon into timber??? They are also very fine trees if allowed to mature, which is a different matter.

These tree farms are not native to Ireland and don't support our biodiversity, the opposite in fact. Take a walk around one of these forests and then take a walk around one of the few patches of natural forest that we have and you'll see what I mean. So I'm pointing out the fact that the only reason we've seen a growth in forest cover percentage in Ireland is because of these tree farms. They may soak up CO2 but they don't offer much to wildlife and biodiversity.

Thelonious Monk

jackboy wrote: »

I haven’t heard the greens talk about tackling this. If they got into power and did nothing other than bring in a law that at least 50% of any plantation must be native, then they would be hugely successful for the environment.

It seems all their policies are just really vague notions rather than anything concrete.

https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Green-Party-Forestry-Policy-2014.pdf

They talk about forestry and trees quite a bit.

Shefwedfan

https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/GREEN_PARTY_TOWARDS_2030-WEB-VERSION.pdf

I think people really need to actually read the manifesto for the Green party. It is not hard going.

But the tree remark above, look at point 12
Restore our peatland and expand our native forests to capture carbon and protect nature through a National Land Use Plan. This will begin with a scheme to pay farmers to plant one hectare of native woodland on their farms

Fred Cryton

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You're making a lot of assumptions here about the population. I don't agree with what you're getting at anyway, just because we've less people doesn't mean we should have the island covered in farms and no nature. Every country needs to clean up its back yard and if that means producing less meat so be it, we shouldn't be worrying about where it might be produced if we don't do it.

We won't be eating less meat, trust me. If anything, all the evidence points to increased global consumption of meat. As poor countries become richer and enter the middle class, one of the first things that happens is their meat consumption goes way up. Once they can afford it, turns out they like it!


So production will happen, you seem to just want to transfer production off this island, which is insane.

Thelonious Monk

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We won't be eating less meat, trust me. If anything, all the evidence points to increased global consumption of meat. As poor countries become richer and enter the middle class, one of the first things that happens is their meat consumption goes way up. Once they can afford it, turns out they like it!


So production will happen, you seem to just want to transfer production off this island, which is insane.

Well that's the fatalistic view and the most likely really. We'll chop down the amazon and every last tree on the planet to facilitate our consumption if it's the most profitable, but as I live in Ireland I can only focus on here and vote Green here and hope others in other countries put in measures to stop the destruction of nature.

jackboy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Green-Party-Forestry-Policy-2014.pdf

They talk about forestry and trees quite a bit.

There is lots of good stuff there that I haven’t heard them discuss in the media. Although from the document it seems that these are just ideas that they advocate for. I would like to believe that they will really try to implement a lot of this, I just find it hard to trust them after their last stint in power. With unlimited funding they did next to nothing.

Thelonious Monk

jackboy wrote: »

There is lots of good stuff there that I haven’t heard them discuss in the media. Although from the document it seems that these are just ideas that they advocate for. I would like to believe that they will really try to implement a lot of this, I just find it hard to trust them after their last stint in power. With unlimited funding they did next to nothing.

Do you trust any party after their last stint in power?

Shefwedfan

jackboy wrote: »

There is lots of good stuff there that I haven’t heard them discuss in the media. Although from the document it seems that these are just ideas that they advocate for. I would like to believe that they will really try to implement a lot of this, I just find it hard to trust them after their last stint in power. With unlimited funding they did next to nothing.

It went into government with FF in 2007. The crash happened in 2008. Where was the unlimited funding?

Shefwedfan

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We won't be eating less meat, trust me. If anything, all the evidence points to increased global consumption of meat. As poor countries become richer and enter the middle class, one of the first things that happens is their meat consumption goes way up. Once they can afford it, turns out they like it!


So production will happen, you seem to just want to transfer production off this island, which is insane.

Veggies are on the increase around the World. Vegan as well. The younger population is less tied to meat than ever before.

jackboy

Shefwedfan wrote: »

It went into government with FF in 2007. The crash happened in 2008. Where was the unlimited funding?

They could have negotiated a lot of that forestry stuff going into government that time. I suspect the bulk of the negotiations were for high levels jobs for the lads. A lot of the stuff in their policy document would not even cost the tax payer much. There was unlimited money when they got into power. They didn’t even try to do anything.

I’m not saying other parties would be better, just that as a Green Party they are disappointing.

Shefwedfan

jackboy wrote: »

They could have negotiated a lot of that forestry stuff going into government that time. I suspect the bulk of the negotiations were for high levels jobs for the lads. A lot of the stuff in their policy document would not even cost the tax payer much. There was unlimited money when they got into power. They didn’t even try to do anything.

I’m not saying other parties would be better, just that as a Green Party they are disappointing.

They changed the whole car tax system. Which was supposed to help clean up environment apart from the car companies lying.

Bike to Work scheme was introduced, ban on older bulbs. Increased renewable and did get a carbon tax introduced.

Then the ass fell out of Ireland....not sure what else anyone could do after that.

This is the manifesto from 2007: http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/green/Green%20Party%20GE%202007.pdf

Interesting if you look at the topics in discussion. Health, childcare, housing, transport.....maybe we would have been better keeping them around a bit longer.

This bit I do like: Set the mobile phone operators, cable companies and Eircom into direct competition to get cheaper, faster and more integrated broadband service

That was in 2007, maybe if they got to introduce that we wouldnt be spending 3 billion now