171170 wrote: » To raise awareness of her or of her cause? Because every time that I see her incredibly slappable face in the media, I get an almost unstoppable urge to throw another couple of tractor tyres on the bonfire.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » Signing up to global plans might look good for a photo op and some twitter comments, but trying to push us to living like we're in the Third World to hit some target isn't the answer and will soon be forgotten once the next major economic crisis hits.
Ireland’s 2020 target is to achieve a 20% reduction of non-ETS sector emissions on 2005 levels with annual binding limits set for each year over the period 2013-2020.
The EU Effort Sharing Decision (ESD) established binding annual greenhouse gas emission targets for Member States for the period 2013–2020. These targets concern emissions from most sectors not included in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), such as transport, buildings, agriculture and waste.
Reaching the 2020 goal is a lost cause and the State is not on course to meet more demanding 2030 targets, or even the “net zero” target in 2050. Ireland has a notorious and long-established record, encapsulated in emission figures that don’t lie Missing targets matters and from next year it will come with a cost: hundreds of millions a year in fines for not living up to our promises to the EU.
Ireland’s obligations under the Effort Sharing Decision will finish in 2020, at which point it will be followed up by the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR). This Regulation, which was adopted on 30 May 2018, sets out binding annual greenhouse gas emission targets for Member States for the period 2021–2030 inclusive.
Ireland will contribute to the Paris Agreement via the Nationally Determined Commitment tabled by the EU in March 2015 on behalf of Member States, which commits to at least a 40% reduction in EU-wide emissions by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels); this is based on reductions in the ETS and non-ETS sectors of 43% and 30% respectively (compared to 2005).
Winning_Stroke wrote: » She's a very brave young lady and we can learn a lot from her past year and a bit.
jackboy wrote: » The issue with slatted houses is the accumulation of slurry. The issues are caused when this is spread on the land in Spring. Because of the unpredictable weather we get, large amounts of this ends up washed into the rivers. I see locally if one farmer times the spreading of slurry wrong, the river can be destroyed for miles downstream. I’m not sure if this system of collecting slurry and then spreading in one go can ever work in Ireland with our climate.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » As gozunda rightly points out, it's not on me to develop a global solution here just because I don't buy into the cynical and obvious manipulation of a child to further ideological crusading.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » I've said this before in relation to other things, but here in Ireland we have a population less than most major cities (almost all of which are in the developing East incidentally). We have limited resources, no heavy industry, and are almost entirely dependent on foreign trade and investment to drive our economy. We have really only one major centre of employment and activity in the country and a dispersed rural population outside it and the 2/3 other "cities" (large towns really). ............................................ The one industry we have (farming) is already under pressure they say (hence the blockades in Dublin again this week). Let's see what happens when they're told to halve production (number picked out of the air) to meet some notional target signed by already out of touch politicians like Leo Varadkar (who no doubt already has his eye on his next job once FG find themselves in opposition again).
_Kaiser_ wrote: » "But but... We'll be doing our part to save the planet!" I hear the crusaders say. Yep, I'm sure that'll be great comfort to the already squeezed taxpayer who will be hit with higher taxes, higher costs of living, more stress and pressure in their daily lives....... For what? So the vocal social media types can post feel good "yay we did it!" nonsense to each other and like each other's comments? ................... Signing up to global plans might look good for a photo op and some twitter comments, but trying to push us to living like we're in the Third World to hit some target isn't the answer and will soon be forgotten once the next major economic crisis hits.
Tell me how wrote: » Well, no one is saying you have yo develop a global solution but given the comments you made, it is interesting to know if you have ideas or are just eager to take the Ian Paisley line of 'No. No. No.' Just because foreign companies such as those in the Med Tech, Pharma and Technology sectors are non Irish founded, that does not imply that we do not have those industries in the country. They are in Ireland, in a big way. Also, is it really a good way to participate in such a discussion while admitting you are pulling figures out of thin air which no one has indicated have a basis in reality? Well, you started out agree with Gozunda that you shouldn't have to offer solutions (which you didn't, to be fair) but now you are focusing on Ireland and Gozunda has been at pains to point out this is a thread about Greta. The reason I mention this is because Greta's message is both that someone needs to be done, and that she acknowledges the solutions are not in front of us right now. She said recently she understands, for example, that it is not feasible that people only sail to the US. But something needs to be done, you have not denied that. It has been discussed several times on thread that while Ireland is indeed a small country, the idea of countries grouping together, committing to efforts and then holding each other to account has been proven to be the best way to enact change on a global level. There's all this talk of taxes, taxes, taxes and now Leo when the evidence has shown that Leo/FG has been hesitant to introduce taxes in this space.
gozunda wrote: » Ahh I think you may be misquoting me with a bit of old contextomy there again. Indeed the thread as inspired by the OP is about gretas travels across the world etc. I think we all know that as it's in the thread title. Though we have also recently learned on here that greta has indeed been Invited here - Cork if I remember correctly? So even more travels? Anyway cant wait! Should be a hoot eitherway.
Clarence Boddiker wrote: » The idea that reducing Irelands emissions through drastically reducing the number of cattle and beef farming in general has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.
Clarence Boddiker wrote: » The idea that reducing Irelands emissions through drastically reducing the number of cattle and beef farming in general has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment. Its a trade deal in which Europe will sell the South Americans cars, machinery, chemicals, pharma etc and in return the Eu will buy South American beef. Someone in Europe has to take a major hit in order to make room for the imported beef and it has been decided that Irish beef farmers will be sacrificed. Wrapping up the targeted destruction of the Irish beef sector in environmental reasons is a lie and a fraud. If emissions were the real concern then why would the EU want to import 100k tonnes a year of beef from South America?
hetuzozaho wrote: » Where would someone read more on this theory?
European farmers and environmentalists have denounced a historic trade deal signed between the EU and South American countries as a “dark moment”, warning of unfair competition and dire consequences for the climate.
Tell me how wrote: » Well, I could quote the x number of posts where you have pointed this out to prove there's no misquoting here, but, you and I both have been here long enough to know that that is the case without me going to the trouble of doing so.
Clarence Boddiker wrote: » Look up the Mercosur trade deal.
Clarence Boddiker wrote: » Look up the Mercosur trade deal. If emissions were the problem then why would we be looking to import 100k tonnes of cattle a year, cattle which will cause emissions (over there) Massive swathes of forest will be cleared in order to rear the cattle. Enormous amounts of C02 output, fuel consumption, energy consumption will occur along the process of bringing this beef from farms halfway across the world to European dinner plates.
hetuzozaho wrote: » Ah interesting. I see it is being discussed today from 3pm. Sounds like many others have the same concerns as yourself regarding emissions involved if deal does go through. Here's hoping it won't..?
Thelonious Monk wrote: » In fairness we should also stop importing feed from south america that also clears forest. And we export our beef all over the world too.
Winning_Stroke wrote: » With less cattle, we can improve Ireland's rewilding efforts though
Tell me how wrote: » You're mixing up the 2 things. The EU and South America is a conventional trade deal. That's how they work. Ireland will likely benefit from the sale of other products to the region while, yes, the idea of 100k tonnes coming in to the EU could impact them. But, Chinese officials recently approved several processing plants for processing Beef for delivery in to their market. So, that could offset losses associated with the trade deal. Conversation on herd numbers is brought up given that we are yet to meet our CO2 targets and the contribution from this industry towards this.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Rewilding is never going to happen in Ireland. People look around and see green and think it's a wild clean country already. Apart from Malta we have the least tree coverage in Europe.
Winning_Stroke wrote: » I know. We need more trees, wildlife and all that. Less of a meat diet and cheaper South American meat should kill off our cattle industry and I think that's good.
is_that_so wrote: » There is a plan, announced sometime recently, to make tree planting native varieties. The numbers are huge but we're still a little short on the how. As for cattle, the Chinese are hungry for quality beef and there's all that huge potential for milk derived products so I wouldn't be writing it off anytime soon.
Winning_Stroke wrote: » Much like countries with vast fossil fuel reserves must give it up, we have to end our farming.
