Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Green" policies are destroying this country

19039049069089091120

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,770 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Swings and roundabouts, last years harvest was good, was that not climate change too? the weather is variable, always has been cyclical patterns (biblical 7 years plenty), all the data is not in for 2023 yet, though spuds will be more expensive this year due to the wet weather impacting harvest.

    "Irish growers are resilient but unfortunately, the number of growers has been in decline for a number of years," he said. 

    "Land availability and soaring input costs remain key challenges. The past year has been challenging for growers from spiralling input costs and it is shaping up to be one of the most difficult harvest seasons in recent memory." source

    Notice the issue is availability of land for growing and rising input costs (i.e. inflation), it is not climate, the weather patterns are seldom the same year to year in Ireland and this is already factored in. Combination of energy policy missteps, after effects on supply chains of covid lockdowns and war have an effect on food availability compared with weather variability. Notice that growers are exiting the Irish market, why? It's not the weather.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Savory is a bit of a charletan, what he proposes cannot make a significant change to desertification and carbon sequestering. There is no science to back his wild claims up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,073 ✭✭✭jackboy


    Vast amounts of property in Irish flood plains are going to flood in that timeframe. All the money put into meeting targets will have a negligible impact if any on that. If the same money is put into flood defences and reversal of incompetent and corrupt planning that would make a massive difference.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,018 ✭✭✭creedp


    Its only naive if you actually believe it. Remember that great bastion policy with cross party support - Slaintecare😂. Politics is all about pulling the wool over the eyes of the gullible electorate, time and time again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    Politics is all about trying to placate the masses. EU elections next year could see a shift in approach. Green deal already being diluted



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    Ah now. What is the alternative to stop, and reverse desertification? As far as I know his solution is accepted as the way to go. We have holistic farming happening here. There's a rancher in the states (name escapes me) who has turned a barron landscape into a thriving landmass by following similar principles



  • Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It maybe able to help in a limited range of ecosystems where overgrazing has been the norm. Introducing native trees and shrubs and minimizing grazing is a more productive method. Extensive deep rooted native shrubs and trees have the ability to raise the water table by transpiration alone, they produce litter on an annual basis which creates topsoil. They also modify water cycles by trapping dew on their leaves which makes its way down to the topsoil that it has created. Minimizing the destructive overgrazing is the key to getting this established and then introducing grazers back into the system.

    Savory has been promoted extensively by fossil fuel and big Agri backed NGO's which should be informative in itself. It's largely a means of promoting business as usual with no change of meat been the focus of agricultural output.

    Until Savory can produce some verifiable data to back up his claims it's a distraction. It certain can be a method of improving agriculture but it is not a big solution as it is hyped.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,945 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    The Savory technique is ranked as similar to other agricultural techniques so it's not some special genius.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 969 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    What floods were there last year? I don't recall any major flooding. So, what floods will there be in the year 2050? Will the rainfall push in from the south or the west?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 969 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    Water vapour is the most prevalent greenhouse gas there is, how do we eliminate that?

    The Hunga Tonga volcano increased atmospheric water vapour by 10% alone which is why we are seeing increased rainfall in parts of the globe and increased humidity also.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Without water vapour you get deserts.

    Water vapour is a complex amplifier of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. It would be massively counterproductive to try to reduce its natural presence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    That's pretty much a summary of a Reuters article about BP earlier in the year though not quite the angle I was implying. They foresaw that renewables was going to permanently take a large slice of the energy market from carbon fuels, so it was all about holding onto that slice. Of course there was a bit of greenwash thrown in but moral high ground was never part of the big equation.

    SMRs are dead in the water because they are entirely against the grain of the nuclear industry incumbents whom actually have the ear of governments.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,425 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    Ive an obvious question. What over grazing and by who and what has turned the majority of Northern africa into desert?



  • Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Northern Africa is a desert because the monsoon rains that once watered it stopped coming. Happened in prehistory and was an early example of climate change. Not sure what the actual trigger was but much of North Africa was lush at one point. I would guess that it was habitable in the last ice age and then dried up when it ended.

    As for who is overgrazing it - if you have ever been to North Africa you will know that large parts of it are stripped bare by goats.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 843 ✭✭✭m2_browning


    “We” who exactly is we?

    we in Ireland could hit all the targets and all of it be undone by any other 7+ billion people on this planet



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 969 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    The discussion was about Irish flood plains, more shifting of the goalposts.

    image.png




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,770 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Since the topic of the energy transition comes up frequently on this thread, this presentation (1 hour 20 mins) by professor Simon Michaux will interest some people on the thread, it builds on his work from a few years ago: Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels. For those who place a premium on the content they read or watch, it is peer reviewed.

    He has added more information in response to critics.

    • How big should the buffer for management of wind and solar intermittent supply be?
    • Can pumped hydro deliver needed power storage buffer?
    • Can stored hydrogen deliver the needed buffer?
    • Can a three times build-out of wind and solar + a 6 hour buffer + a 90% reduction of cars resolve the resource shortfall?

    He then moves on to proposed solutions

    • Energy generation
    • Alternative battery chemistries
    • Restructuring of society


    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I won't be wasting 1hr 20mins on this ****, but here is an observation from someone who did (poor fellow)

    "A different way of saying it is that I’ve made it clear that people relying on his paper are suffering under the auspices of the appeal to false authority fallacy. He’s not an authority. He’s a guy who may be trying to figure out decarbonization, but he’s not remotely an authority on the subjects he’s published a non-peer reviewed piece on. The confirmation bias among those who love his paper is thick on the ground.

    But what about the merits of his paper? Well, there aren’t any to speak of."

    its a genuinely interesting read from an actual real expert in the field.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 969 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack



    David Attenborough Voice On: And here, Ladies and Gentlemen is an example of 'Groupthink Confirmation Bias' in the wild. /David Attenborough Voice Off.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 969 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    Northern Africa is a desert because the monsoon rains that once watered it stopped coming. Happened in prehistory and was an early example of climate change. Not sure what the actual trigger was but much of North Africa was lush at one point. I would guess that it was habitable in the last ice age and then dried up when it ended.

    As for who is overgrazing it - if you have ever been to North Africa you will know that large parts of it are stripped bare by goats.

    An early example of climate change indeed, no SUVs or the likes then, was there? It's almost like if the climate has always changed and always will, regardless to any great extent of what humans do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    Deleted. Misread post.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    And this replicated right across the northern hemisphere, where once there was life, now there's desert. The earth shifted it's tilt, which led to the aforementioned change. And we're still in that "dry period". Some point in the future things will revert. Back in the day these lands would be grazed. Grazing helps in the management of the soils.

    Now, before the climate denier **** is lobbed out, I'm not. I'm a spend trillions in isolation to many parts of the world is nonsense kinda guy. When big industrial powerhouses of the world start investing like we are, start pushing the transition to the same degree then we're good to go. Even our big neighbours in the UK are rowing back which negates our efforts even more. Once the whole world isn't on board, then no matter what we do here is pointless in the world context.

    We can and should do things to improve our lot but thinking our lot will delay warming - crazy.

    Post edited by roosterman71 on


  • Posts: 15,801 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Aye, that's why virtually every country in the world is working towards emission reductions

    Or are you really going to try say only Ireland is doing that?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,045 ✭✭✭roosterman71




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    When I was a greenhorn I was sent to Oman on a business trip. My two cans of coke cost more than the 25 litres of gas my boss put into the car. 'nuff said.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,252 ✭✭✭ginger22




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 596 ✭✭✭deholleboom


    The advantage of SMRs is that they are...small. A company might actually invest in those if the product has a chance of success and the barriers not too high. Current large investment modern reactors technology is well known and work and should be sponsored. The return on investment is long term and stable. China is able to make them in about 5-6 years fr start to finish. Canada is doing pretty well. France on the other hand has a lot of old ones but invest in other countries. Germany is..well, never mind. Compare those facilities to wind and solar installations f land use alone and it becomes pretty clear it HAS to be part of the energy mix as there is no one panacea. Have an EU/US/ world conference (like a nuclear COP) to come up with a few models w the highest safety and efficiency levels so countries can roll them out without having the current barrage of barriers put in front of them. Critics will point to the limitations of nuclear energy. Fair enough.To them i say: make a summary list of all the pros and cons of every energy production source from start to finish and we'll see. I actually see some people are starting to think that way now that green tech keeps hitting the reality wall. Wasnt Bill Gates talking about this recently? Things shift..

    Post edited by deholleboom on


  • Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So you don't consider the natural end of an ice age climate change. It's actually the climate change deniers who think that climate simply changes without any cause like magic.

    There is always a cause for climate change, just this time it's us.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 6,626 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    There are no SMR reactors in production. Recently the British government pulled out of backing Rolls Royces proposed SMR program - which shows there are still significant technical challenges to develop a cost effective unit.

    But the real kicker is two fold, SMR units are less efficient and so produce considerably more expensive to manage nuclear waste, they are also a defuse security risk which makes the cost of managing security significantly greater. These two factors alone are enough to kill the whole sector dead before it even begins.

    Ireland will not invest in the two conventional nuclear power plants it would need so it will never get out of the discussions boards as a future plan.

    Green tech has hit the commodities inflation wall which has made many of its in the pipe line projects unviable. Such things as labour shortages are pushing just about all infrastructure projects into unviable costings scenarios and that includes nuclear projects which have similarly seen cost sore. The reality is though that nuclear doesn't operate in a competitive market so governments just tend to suck up the spiraling costs without talking about it - the sunk cost falacy.

    As for France, the poster boy for nuclear, it's whole sector has costed it decommissioning cycle at such a rediciulously low price that when the chickens come home to roost (all together in a very short window) it will place such a burden on the government who will have to pick up the bill, as EDS will inevitably have to declare bankruptcy, that it will cripple an already struggling economy. The temptation will be to just keep extending the service life into the future until the inevitable catastrophy forces their hand.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


Advertisement