Climate Bolloxolgy.

Moving from plastic to paper packaging for the likes of potatoes will double the cost for the supplier. Suppliers in Ireland tried to move so as to have an offering for consumers...the multiples refused point blank to either cover the extra packaging cost or pass the increase to the customer...

Will that make the supermarket pay for the packaging?

The fact that it has taken decades after other countries says alot about this state. In the last government Denis Naughton point blank refused to bring one in despite a mountain of public support into his Department via an online consultation doc.

Most of the bigger suppliers around here use paper bags for the spuds, a few of the smaller lads use the plastic bags for 1-2kg bags

And the kicker is it is often the Fairtrade bananas that are wrapped.

The worst has to be M&S.

Every fecking thing in the place bar the bread is wrapped in some form of plastic.

They must have shares in a plastics company.

I think in the 80s here, did you get some kinda money back on glass bottles or something like that?

I have a half memory of beer bottles or some kinda bottles being taken back to get the deposit back on them?

It's ridiculous to see loose fruit and veg being dearer than pre-packaged.

Who is going to pay? Aren't the government putting out talk that they already own the carbon sequestered in forestry. Be easy extend that to agri land too. I think I spoke about this in the thread already. It would be like the ban on turf cutting where they promised the sun moon and stars. They paid up in year one but nothing after that

And the rewetting of bogs has it's own challenges related to flooding of surrounds, etc

Will they pay appropriately for the environmental schemes and if you enter into something like rewetting will that land use be locked in stone thereby devaluing the asset forever (I mean devaluing in terms of what food/revenue it can produce if the environment schemes won't pay)

Then if enough go for it and enough demand is there for food and its price increases due to more land being non productive in terms of food....thus making food production more profitable the contrarian in me thinks **** them and their meddling unless they pay properly and its guaranteed and rights aren't eroded I might maintain the ability to produce.

Another part of me thinks these assholes pushing this were the chief architects of causing a lot of the climate/loss of biodiversity and squeezing the primary producer in favour of big business.....not anxious to get fooled again.....I suppose what I'm saying is I'm all in favour of increasing biodiversity etc but I'm not anxious to get ridden by the same pricks that are in my eyes largely responsible for causing the problem by not leaving a living in a sustainable system.

I only know of a couple of bogs in my local area an surrounds that would fall into that category

Some work done on them but turf not really suitable for fuel,not the good quality black stuff so as a consequence still largely intact and only encroached on a bit around the edges......would there be enough of unfarmed bogland like this to make a significant difference? ...are we talking rewetting all of bird na mona bog/bog of allen?

I am aware of studies being conducted re carbon capture in rewetted bogs and transfer/transplant of sphagnums to get bogs accumulating again and have a net intake of carbon but are there enough suitable sites that aren't actively farmed to make a worthwhile dent?

I'm not against the idea as I think I have a basic grasp of the science and the data does show they start taking carbon in + can be good for many native species/biodiversity and perhaps even a tourist/local amenity....I am against being screwed however.......