Just found the above chart backing up what I have been saying for years.
Global warming is a wholly natural event, if humanity disappeared tonight, global warming would still happen.
Why the condescension?
I think anyone remotely environmentally leaning should visit let’s say Mumbai at least once in their lives (tho it will shave off a few months of your life expectancy for sure)
It will shatter any illusions as we live on a small clean wet rock in Atlantic in comparison
China and India having almost half of the worlds population and rapidly rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 they produce literally undoes anything we think of
I know you have good intentions and it sounds like a good idea but please do visit India, it’s an interesting place to put it mildly
The Green policies are directly aimed at destroying farming, which is partly why the Greens across Europe got such a trumping in recent elections
I've been to Bangladesh, supposedly it's India with a turbo strapped on.
Ultimately it's over population that has been its greatest pressure since foundation, despite climate extremes there.
I've also lived in deserts where people have had cave dwelling civilisation for millennia. There's a very strong ignorance in Ireland about how people live in other lands. There was actually no shortage of food in Ethiopia as a whole when LiveAid happened, just as there was no shortage of food in Ireland in the 1840s when millions starved.
Such starvations were domestic political policies.
The green doomer cult is a substitution for the loss of religion in western societies, and not surprisingly it will be the younger generations who are being repeatedly rinsed by such gaslighting that will turn their back on it.
Ethiopia is an interesting one
1984 - 39 million
2022 - 121 million
Meanwhile here in Ireland we still haven’t recovered the population size from famine in mid 19th century
So nothing to do with renewables or nuclear then.
Just trying to flow the logic of your ranting- seems there isn't any.
Yes, the mass starvation begat mass emigration that really didn't relent until the 1990s, although I had to emigrate again after the Greens fantastic bank guarantee. I'm sure they thought Ireland was too crowded.
There is a clear logic but it’s no surprise you are having hard time to grasp it as religion tend to screw up peoples brains
Let me spell it out clearly;
Instead of embracing nuclear science and technology and economics that are proven to work
The Greens oppose this and then doubled down here and across Europe and decided to go on a crusade against farmers of all things!
Which politically it turned out was an exceptionally stupid thing to do
The saddest thing is that Greens simply won't lead by example and expire to "save the planet".
As someone said earlier in this thread, the earth has seen lots of climate extremes and extinctions and it will be fine after humanity is gone.
But then you have to take into account how monumentally stupid the Green Parties across Europe are.
Good to see a wipe out of these current shower of idiots and hopefully a new generation of Greens can start now and work on a sustainable policy that will get people on board.
Sorry but of all the global warming stupidity this argument stands out on top. Air quality and emissions is not the only issue we face in the environmental crisis and although they are often rolled into one, there are many important environemntal issues we need to focus on locally like replenishing fish stocks and marine diversity, tree planting,increasing our sustainable energy reserves, rewilding and reducing plastic usage, and also drawing less on international goods from mega companies like amazon, shein etc. Many of these overlap and have the added benefit of reducing carbon emissions.
And as for the 'only chinese and indians should have to do anything' , why should this issue only be based on some arbitrarily drawn lines? If we combine the EU as one, the emissions will be on par with them. Does Ireland then matter or does it not seeing as we have arbitrarily jumped from now just 1% of emissions on our own to what 25% of global emissions in our economic block? If shanghai seceeded from China and thus only represented a few percentage points of global emissions, is it now off the hook same as little old ireland?When of course in reality there is no material difference in the damage being done to the planet. All countries will and must change and EU is quite noticeably leading as an exemplar in many of those aspects while maintaining good quality of life. We get nowhere when we only look out for ourselves because only the planet suffers.
some of the discourse on climate change reminds me of this video.
if people think china should do something first, then don't buy things made in china.
Yeh that’s all Greta (lol pun) in theory but in practice you will get pissed off very quickly if a good chunk of your taxes got to environmental issues while someone in China freeloads on your efforts
And then it gets worse if you endup without a job as someone in India who is not shackled by same restrictions undercuts you
You already see it in the most popular thread on this subforum, the immigration one, the begrudgery at the thought that immigrants might take anything away from the locals has bred incredible resentment
Co2 emissions per capita (tons)
Bangladesh 0.47
China 7.44
Ireland 8.29
USA 15.32
So it's just twisted logic without coherence.
Nuclear has significant issues, predominantly based around lead times and cost overruns. Countries with mature nuclear sectors have a chance to overcome them but not Ireland where it answers none of our climate issues.
Farming needs to be sustainable and none polluting. Neither is the case for the current model Ireland is following so it is appropriate to seek change to make it both sustainable and non polluting. If we don't we eventually face famine when our soil simple stops producing and fossil fuel based fertilizers become to expensive to produce, as they recently did during COVID. Famines happen when food prices spike to levels at which people cannot pay and then we get conflict and civil disorder and eventually wars.
Complaining about people trying to find solutions isn't helping anyone. The current growth in anti Green feeling is both a consequence of a rise in right wing politics and the simple fact that people resist change even when it's essential.
There are solutions, your lot actively opposes them and goes of on stupid crusades which led to their political destruction
@shoog just wondering- where do you sit with the renewables needing backup issue? Renewables need a way to store excess energy for when we have very low solar and wind output- so what’s the answer to this? At the moment it’s coal oil and gas and will hopefully just be gas in the near future.
That goes for everything. Should the EU abolish strict labour protection laws for the sake of the 'economy' because employers in china and india have it easier? Those countries, if they don't change soon, will continue to choke on smog and suffer the many ill effects of a depleted environment. It is no reason for us to stoop to a similar level. It's all about increasing quality of life at the end of the day, and a race to the bottom to destroy the worlds resources certainly isn't going to have a winner.
All generating capacity needs backups ( a very large issue for nuclear especially if you only have a few reactors). If you have a good spread of renewables and some grid scale storage the amount of backup you have to draw on is relatively small on an annual basis. If your primary objective is to reduce emissions renewables offer a way to get our emissions down to around 20% of current levels with gas been used to fill the gap, which is well within our obligations.
I think renewables with gas backup out to 2050 is the best strategy to met our emissions targets.
Another interesting element to this is conservation and reduction. The subsidizing of CFL light bulbs in the early 2000 helped remove the need to install a lot of new generating capacity. Similarly the support for domestic PV is helping to reduce the need for increased primary generating capacity. People with PV tend to manage their usage to use off peak grid electricity and in many cases are virtually self sufficient in electricity for much of the year.
There has to be a broad spectrum approach to addressing our energy needs.
Climate change has always been a thing but as I think you were previously told, we have massively accelerated the pace of change and are doing little to mitigate against the effects of it.
ok so you agree fossil fuels will be part of our generating portfolio out to 2050. Why then would we not be trying to secure our own supplies of NG out to 2050 considering Corrib is now past its peak?
Grand, but tell a young person who can't afford to move out of home that they need to be taxed more to save the planet is wearing thin.
If I were a teenage again I'd probably be blocking out the doomster green misery like I blocked out the RCC witherings.
The one main difference between the "doomster green misery" and the "RCC witherings" is that one is based on actual evidence so if you were a teenager, by all means stick your fingers in your ears but that doesn't mean it still isn't happening!
It really isn't cost effective for Ireland to develop it's own gas reserves. We had to give away Corrib to get shell interested and that was the easy win of our gas potential. It's an expensive distracton at this stage.
Please don't blame the abject failure of FFG to develop a housing policy on the Greens - it's an embarrassing distraction.
Climate change always happened.
Show me proof that taxing young people will deliver a perfect climate.
Are you seriously suggesting that we have a tax only applicable young people?
The problem is the green message to young people is it's all doom, every year it's "it's not too late to save the planet", making them feel like they're the problem. It's extremely negative.
Sorry now, but how is it not cost effective for Ireland to develop its own gas reserves which you’ve admitted we will need for the next 26 years? Firstly all exploration costs are taken on by the companies that carry out the exploration so there’s no cost there- do you agree with that?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f6ec3b6ae14cc6cd4a0e3a3374e0ef7b.svg)
