Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Climate Change Bill

12346»

Comments

  • #152
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Macha wrote: »
    Richard, (if that is you..!), fossil fuels benefit from a variety of subsidies in Ireland. Just one example is the subsidies granted to internal aviation. There are other agreements that ensure no tax is paid on aviation fuel.

    There are plenty of other examples.

    Come on? You want to tax aviation fuel?? I know the Greens want to destroy the country, but the good people of Boards.ie too. I hope none of your family works in a hotel.


  • #153
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    dynamick wrote: »
    The implication of this statement is that fossil fuels are unsubsidised or less subsidised than renewables.

    To back up this assumption you would need to assess and then compare the subsidies for both types of energy source. You would also need an estimate for the price of fossil fuels throughout the lifespan of a wind turbine.

    What is the price of securing the supply of oil and gas from the Middle East and the Russians?
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece

    The choice of national infrastructure and the planning rules that disperse people from each other and their jobs leaves rational citizens with no choice but to spend heavily on fossil-fuel based personal transport. When you want to heat your house you find that the home heating oil attracts a specially low rate of tax compared to car fuel. This tax break acts as a subsidy.

    When I go to the shops on my bike the prices I pay for goods are used to subsidise the 'free' car park outside. In this way people are encouraged to burn a litre of petrol whenever they need a litre of milk.

    And how much does wind cost Ireland and what alternatives do we have?

    The latest PSO levy adds €3 per month to domestic electricity bills and about €1 of that goes to subsidise wind prices. The levy only kicks in when the price of electricity falls below a certain tariff so for example last year the PSO levy was zero. If fossil fuel prices rise in future there will be no levy.

    What other subsidies exist? there is a tax break for companies buying renewable energy equipment to allow them to write off the capital cost against corporation tax. But there is also a bundle of tax incentives for companies that wish to prospect for oil or gas in Irish waters.

    What alternative does Ireland have to encouraging renewables? None. As members of the EU we now have a legally binding obligation to switch a proportion of energy produced to renewables.
    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:01:EN:HTML

    You are completely forgetting the carbon tax on fossil fuels which distort the market.


  • #154
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    mgmt wrote: »
    You are completely forgetting the carbon tax on fossil fuels which distort the market.
    In what way? Surely the internalisation of an external cost is simply correcting the market. The market is not perfect.


  • #155
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    No, they are not. Look up HVDC.
    dynamick wrote:
    HVDC can transmit with around 3% loss per 1,000km
    http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/...ntent=Benefits

    Look up the cost of HVDC :rolleyes:
    With nuclear we don't need to waste billions on new connections, use the existing grid instead.
    But of course cost is not an issue since its not the wind companies paying for it but the people and businesses of this country, who are also providing a guaranteed price to these generators and we have a system that does not reward the cheapest electricity ending up with high costs
    While all of yee continue to discuss our expensive Green future, today I am sending own dozen more servers to a French datacenter (using nuclear power) where the costs are much cheaper, directly supporting jobs there


    Of course having to build more connectors blows the "independence" argument out of the water since we end up relying on others for energy when the wind doesn't blow, you could build the 20GW of wind but it be useless when there a zone over the whole island with little to no wind, back to importing energy we go, and you can bet the foreign generators would charge a premium knowing that we would have to pay anything to get energy on a calm day.


    Somehow the onus of proof that wasting billions on wind is on me :rolleyes: not the organisations that are costing this economy billions and lead to job losses.
    Yeh I suppose @AN is incapable of seeing the irony in his support for subsidising the wind industry since its similar policies in the past that ended up supporting the construction industry and partly leading the country to where it is now.
    Carry on dreaming, the economy is being set up for another shafting and yee are blindly following a group of people with and agenda for own guaranteed profit like lemmings. Will yee ever learn.


    It is interesting that I have to provide figures and cost benefit analyses of alternatives (doesnt have to be nuclear) while the people who actually have their snouts in the trough dont. Bloody hypocrites, arguing with Green zealots is like arguing with FFers back in 00s when it came to talking about subsidising construction industry and pouring oil into a bubble.


  • #156
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 718 ✭✭✭dynamick


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    With nuclear we don't need to waste billions on new connections, use the existing grid instead.
    Your argument is based on a false choice between nuclear and wind power. These two technologies do not compete. Surely you know this?

    Nuclear provides baseload constant electricity not easily shut off or increased to match demand. It competes with gas, oil and coal power stations. Wind power is intermittent and must be matched with some form of easily variable power source such as dispatchable gas or else matched against an energy store or balanced with interconnection capacity. In practice, all three approaches are used together.

    We aren't getting a nuclear power station in Ireland in the medium term because it is illegal since the 1999 Electricity Act and because even if the law were revoked, to plan and deploy a nuclear power station would take at least 15 years. I'd see no problem planning for one now but I imagine it would be a hard one to sell to the general public. And, of course, it is utterly irrelevant to wind power.
    It is interesting that I have to provide figures and cost benefit analyses of alternatives
    You don't have to but if you make assertions which you can only support with your emotions, you can't expect anyone to believe you.

    The California Energy Commission estimates wind power to be cheaper in some circumstances than nuclear. See here: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-011/CEC-200-2007-011-SD.PDF

    The US Energy Information Administration reckons that wind power costs about 25% more than nuclear to generate: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

    The UK government commissioned the Parsons Brinckerhoff Report to investigate future energy strategy and costs. They estimate that wind power costs about a third more than nuclear to generate. http://www.pbpoweringthefuture.com/pdf/pb_ptf_full_report.pdf

    Of course all these estimates are based on assumptions and predictions. When you look at similar reports from a decade ago you get very different numbers because factors like the price of fossil fuels and the efficiency of wind turbines have changed. Also each report has to decide which costs to include in the price of energy generation. Do you include decommissioning costs for nuclear? Do you include grid strengthening costs for renewables? Do you include the cost of war in the middle east in the price of oil power?

    I will be very impressed if you can back up your assertion that wind power costs three times the amount that nuclear power costs. I am not suggesting that you made up the number but more unkind readers might suspect as much.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    dynamick wrote: »


    You don't have to but if you make assertions which you can only support with your emotions, you can't expect anyone to believe you.

    The California Energy Commission estimates wind power to be cheaper in some circumstances than nuclear. See here: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-011/CEC-200-2007-011-SD.PDF

    The US Energy Information Administration reckons that wind power costs about 25% more than nuclear to generate: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

    Solar has become very cheap in recent years. The cost of production has broken the 1$/watt barrier which is seen as the point which it becomes competitive with fossil fuel generation. Indeed 'First Solar' is producing panels at 77c/watt. Alas, not very suitable for dull and cloudy Ireland.


  • #158
    EastTexas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭EastTexas


    dynamick
    California has lots of space and much wind, thus is considered to be an optimum location for windmills.
    Even in the late 80’s when I lived there, I remember miles upon miles of wind farms when driving along the highways out in the country.

    But no dent let alone a valid contribution to the energy needs of that state.
    To this day it remains an over funded “ experiment” in a fiscally very strapped state.


  • #159
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 718 ✭✭✭dynamick


    EastTexas wrote: »
    dynamick
    California has lots of space and much wind, thus is considered to be an optimum location for windmills.
    I imagine that California is a good spot for solar and wind but Ireland has both more land per capita than California and is windier.

    sources:
    Irish wind speed: http://www.met.ie/climate/wind.asp
    CA wind speed: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westwind.final.html#CALIFORNIA
    Irish population density: http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=75472
    CA pop density: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

    But no dent let alone a valid contribution to the energy needs of that state.
    About 15% of California's electricity in 2009 came from renewables.
    http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/

    Target is for 20% of electricity from renewables this year and 33% by 2020.


  • #160
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    mgmt wrote: »
    You are completely forgetting the carbon tax on fossil fuels which distort the market.

    Uncosted externalities distort the market, not costed ones, because there's a cost factor which is not being included in the market. That's an unavoidable fact.

    Badly costed externalities distort the market as well, so it would probably be easier to argue that carbon taxes are a poor reflection of the real cost of the externalities involved rather than that costing at all them distorts the market in the first place. Unfortunately, such an argument either requires putting figures on things that are rather hard to accurately assess, or waving the whole argument away by claiming climate change just isn't happening.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #161
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Uncosted externalities distort the market, not costed ones, because there's a cost factor which is not being included in the market. That's an unavoidable fact.

    Badly costed externalities distort the market as well, so it would probably be easier to argue that carbon taxes are a poor reflection of the real cost of the externalities involved rather than that costing at all them distorts the market in the first place. Unfortunately, such an argument either requires putting figures on things that are rather hard to accurately assess, or waving the whole argument away by claiming climate change just isn't happening.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


    Ah yes because green tech doesnt have any externalities that are ignored



    anyways back to climate change bill
    We still have to figure out how to estimate the economic impacts of targets this deep; the measures included in our model are not sufficient. The regulatory impact assessment has no cost estimates.

    So, we are essentially asked to sign up to something we do not understand.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Ah yes because green tech doesnt have any externalities that are ignored

    Green tech often does, but that doesn't change what I said.
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    anyways back to climate change bill
    As another sign of the rushed introduction of the climate bill, the first estimates of the costs of the climate bill are published in a newspaper. O Gallachoir’s estimates are based on a model which is still under active development (rather than on a model which has been vetted and peer-reviewed — this is due to the starting date of the modelling project). Note that UCC is way ahead of the ESRI here: We still have to figure out how to estimate the economic impacts of targets this deep; the measures included in our model are not sufficient. The regulatory impact assessment has no cost estimates.

    So, we are essentially asked to sign up to something we do not understand.

    No, we're being asked to sign up to something we don't fully understand the economic implications of, but have agreed to sign up to for reasons that are unrelated to those economic implications. If we're to use the fact that we don't fully understand the economic implications of a policy or agreement, we'd never actually do anything at all.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #163
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    This bill, as the OP said, is sheer lunacy based on a scientific premise that is shaky ....to say the least.


  • #164
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    This bill, as the OP said, is sheer lunacy based on a scientific premise that is shaky ....to say the least.

    To refer to a scientific theory that is accepted so very widely as "shaky...to say the least" strongly suggests that you are allowing your personal views on the science to be the measure of scientific acceptability. I'm going to address that point from a moderation perspective before the discussion gets dragged into an argument over the reality of climate change, which is not appropriate to the Politics forum.

    I have no difficulty accepting that to anyone who disagrees with the mainstream scientific view on climate change anything that costs us money in order to avert climate change is clearly lunatic - however, the same can be said for fluoridation, vaccination, pandemics, the ozone layer, acid rain, DDT, biodiversity, asbestos, smoking, evolution, and a wide variety of other issues.

    Unless someone can put forward a good reason why the scientific consensus on any scientific subject should be put aside in favour of any particular minority position on the same subject by policy makers, it's not really meaningful to put forward your personally preferred minority position as if it's a reasonable guide to policy-making.

    And no, that's not an opening for people to put forward reasons why they personally have difficulty with the consensus position, the views of others holding minority opinions, or claims that the scientific majority isn't really a majority.

    The political position is to accept the scientific majority opinion, the scientific majority opinion is that climate change is a fact - and those are the parameters of the discussion as regards this forum, which is not a science forum but a politics forum. At the political level, globally, the reality of climate change is an accepted fact.

    If people arguing over the impact of the climate bill wish to make clear whether their political opposition to it is founded on personal disagreement with the consensus position on climate change used by policy-makers, that's fine - indeed, it would be dishonest not to do so. The same applies, obviously, if one's political position on it is based on the personal view that the science goes beyond the consensus position, and that the outcome of climate change will be more extreme than indicated by the consensus position used by policy-makers, and therefore requiring more drastic action than is being taken.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #165
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    @Scofflaw

    There is a difference between not knowing the economic impact after attempting to perform a study or cost/benefit analysis
    And not even bothering to do one in first place
    The country is where it is now due to past economic policies where any counter analysis was ignored and dissenters where told to commit suicide

    It seems no lessons have been learned and similar mode of operation continues on.


    Btw our "international obligations" call for a 20% reduction, this goes above that for a larger 30% reduction. Dont forget that these "promises" where made during a boom and when the country was not run by IMF and in full employment, any measures that could/would negatively impact on employment should be given a longer consideration with detailed analyses produced!

    What the government is doing is careless and once again being directed hijacked by lobby/interest groups and not by research and analysis.


  • #166
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Now that I think of it, this bill only addresses CO2
    while seems to ignore Methane which is 40x more potent global warming climate :p change gas

    of course we live on an island with more cows, sheep, pigs etc than people
    all happily farting away and pooping away in our green fields

    I suppose if the Greens go near the farmers and agriculture which is probably more damaging to the environment they would get their heads chopped off


    ah politics...


  • #167
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    @Scofflaw

    There is a difference between not knowing the economic impact after attempting to perform a study or cost/benefit analysis
    And not even bothering to do one in first place
    The country is where it is now due to past economic policies where any counter analysis was ignored and dissenters where told to commit suicide

    It seems no lessons have been learned and similar mode of operation continues on.

    That's hardly the case here - the Climate Change Bill is politically unpopular, not popular and in line with all the vested interests in the country!
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Btw our "international obligations" call for a 20% reduction, this goes above that for a larger 30% reduction. Dont forget that these "promises" where made during a boom and when the country was not run by IMF and in full employment, any measures that could/would negatively impact on employment should be given a longer consideration with detailed analyses produced!

    The reductions required to stabilise atmospheric CO2 at its present levels are actually of the order of 80-95% by 2050, and the EU has agreed to a voluntary target of 30% by 2020 - so a 30% target is hardly some kind of mad fling.

    As to the fact that we promised those reductions during the boom - we then didn't have a hope of actually meeting them any more than our Kyoto targets, whereas now they're actually somewhat more approachable, particularly since we're going to have to rebuild a good chunk of our economy as it is.

    Emissions reduction targets are going to go away. On the contrary, they're only going to increase - so why not, for once, try to start early rather than after the fact? Do we have to go down the road yet again of seeking a derogation from something we'll have to do anyway?
    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    What the government is doing is careless and once again being directed hijacked by lobby/interest groups and not by research and analysis.

    Again, no - emissions reduction targets of 30% are entirely in line with research and analysis. The idea that they're directed by lobby/interest groups flies in the face of the fact that nearly every lobby/interest group with political clout in this country opposes climate change action, either directly, through inaction, or through seeking special conditions, compensation, derogations etc.
    Now that I think of it, this bill only addresses CO2
    while seems to ignore Methane which is 40x more potent global warming climate change gas

    of course we live on an island with more cows, sheep, pigs etc than people
    all happily farting away and pooping away in our green fields

    I suppose if the Greens go near the farmers and agriculture which is probably more damaging to the environment they would get their heads chopped off


    ah politics...

    Exactly. Far from being directed by special interest groups who ignore the science, climate change action is directed by the available scientific consensus and opposed by special interest groups.

    Really, the only way one can hold such a view is if one believes that climate change action is fundamentally unnecessary.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #168
    Nolanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,556 ✭✭✭Nolanger


    How much CO2 gets emitted from a human cremation?


  • #169
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As to the fact that we promised those reductions during the boom - we then didn't have a hope of actually meeting them any more than our Kyoto targets, whereas now they're actually somewhat more approachable, particularly since we're going to have to rebuild a good chunk of our economy as it is.

    I'm sorry we cannot build an economy on carbon taxes. This bill will sink us. Perhaps when the country suffers from mass emigration not seen since the famine will we achieve these ridiculous targets. Perhaps then the Greens will be satisfied.


  • #170
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Nolanger wrote: »
    How much CO2 gets emitted from a human cremation?

    Could cremations be restricted by this bill??
    An Australian scientist has questioned the age-old tradition of cremation by highlighting that it adds to global warming. He said that people could instead choose to get buried in a cardboard box under a tree.

    http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/dont-go-up-in-smoke-die-a-green-death/

    I remember being told by one of my professors that the Scandinavians take the energy created from crematorians and use it for district heating.


  • #171
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    mgmt wrote: »
    I'm sorry we cannot build an economy on carbon taxes. This bill will sink us. Perhaps when the country suffers from mass emigration not seen since the famine will we achieve these ridiculous targets. Perhaps then the Greens will be satisfied.

    The idea isn't that you rebuild your economy on carbon taxes - you rebuild your economy to avoid carbon taxes, because they're only there to push people away from emitting CO2. The reason for doing it is that emissions caps will only get more stringent, not less, as time goes by. It therefore doesn't make any sense to rebuild the Irish economy on a high energy-wastage, high-emission basis, because that just kicks the can down the road, and the amount of adjustment gets bigger the longer you delay it.

    Both businesses and private households in Ireland are energy inefficient, and the country relies almost 95% on imported oil and gas. Becoming more energy-efficient makes economic sense, because emissions reductions targets will continue to increase, and the long-term price of oil and gas isn't going to go anywhere but up. Unfortunately, the current prices of fossil fuels still don't reflect their long-term scarcity, or their externalities - and until they do, there is inadequate incentive to become as energy and carbon efficient as we will need to be in the coming decades.

    I appreciate that there is always an incentive to wave away the problems of tomorrow in favour of spending what's available today - but we've just had a decade of that, and the results aren't exactly something that suggests that's a good approach.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The idea isn't that you rebuild your economy on carbon taxes - you rebuild your economy to avoid carbon taxes, because they're only there to push people away from emitting CO2.

    CO2 is emitted from the production of everything. Carbon taxes only make our goods more expensive and encourage more people not to buy them.



    Both businesses and private households in Ireland are energy inefficient, and the country relies almost 95% on imported oil and gas.

    That is their problem not the governments problem. We also rely on 100% imported cars, trucks, etc. So what?
    Becoming more energy-efficient makes economic sense,

    No. Being as competitive as possible makes economic sense. Nothing else comes close.

    long-term price of oil and gas isn't going to go anywhere but up.

    We don't know that.

    I appreciate that there is always an incentive to wave away the problems of tomorrow in favour of spending what's available today - but we've just had a decade of that, and the results aren't exactly something that suggests that's a good approach.

    We are currently losing the college graduates to emigration. That is the problem of tomorrow today.


  • #173
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    mgmt wrote: »
    CO2 is emitted from the production of everything. Carbon taxes only make our goods more expensive and encourage more people not to buy them.

    Everyone else is also going for carbon taxes and emissions cuts, so there's competitive advantage in producing lower-carbon goods. It's not simply a case of CO2 being produced from the production of something, but how much CO2.
    mgmt wrote: »
    That is their problem not the governments problem. We also rely on 100% imported cars, trucks, etc. So what?

    So Ireland cannot maintain a competitive position in the face of rising oil and gas costs. Like it or not, we have to reduce energy wastage.
    mgmt wrote: »
    No. Being as competitive as possible makes economic sense. Nothing else comes close.

    Yes, except that it seems you can't conceive of how having a lower-carbon economy in an era of increasingly stringent emissions controls worldwide is a competitive advantage.

    Nor, to be honest, do I think you really mean what you're saying there - we would be far more "competitive" if we abandoned all restrictions on pollution, on unsafe work, on planning, removed any restrictions on labour, abandoned IP law, and a variety of other measures that would leave us as an ultra-competitive hell-hole.
    mgmt wrote: »
    We don't know that.

    I'm afraid we do know that. Even the International Energy Authority now accepts that we're somewhere around peak oil. It's a finite resource - it doesn't last forever.
    mgmt wrote: »
    We are currently losing the college graduates to emigration. That is the problem of tomorrow today.

    Meh. It turned out not be a problem in the late Nineties. If there's any sign of an upturn, they'll come back, bringing their experience with them - it's not like it takes a decade for people to find out if there's work in Ireland, and most Irish people would rather live in Ireland. As it currently stands, Ireland's anti-entrepreneurial culture is a bigger problem.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #174
    Nolanger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,556 ✭✭✭Nolanger


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As it currently stands, Ireland's anti-entrepreneurial culture is a bigger problem.
    That's what the Leaving Cert is for. To kill off any entrepreneurial ability.


  • #175
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 718 ✭✭✭dynamick


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Now that I think of it, this bill only addresses CO2
    while seems to ignore Methane which is 40x more potent global warming climate :p change gas
    A spiffy alternative to thinking of facts is to determine them by research. In this case reading the first page of the proposed Climate Change Bill would tell you that the bill defines targets for
    (a) carbon dioxide,
    (b) methane,
    (c) nitrous oxide,
    (d) hydrofluorocarbons,
    (e) perflurocarbons,
    (f) sulphur hexafluoride

    As in so many areas, policy on climate change is determined at European level. The UK legislated a very similar law two years ago.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Act_2008

    The sooner we start working towards reaching our mandated European target the less it will cost us. Notice that the USA's refusal of the Kyoto agreement didn't really help their motor industry in the way that they had hoped.


  • #176
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    dynamick wrote: »
    A spiffy alternative to thinking of facts is to determine them by research. In this case reading the first page of the proposed Climate Change Bill would tell you that the bill defines targets for
    (a) carbon dioxide,
    (b) methane,
    (c) nitrous oxide,
    (d) hydrofluorocarbons,
    (e) perflurocarbons,
    (f) sulphur hexafluoride

    As in so many areas, policy on climate change is determined at European level. The UK legislated a very similar law two years ago.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Act_2008

    The sooner we start working towards reaching our mandated European target the less it will cost us. Notice that the USA's refusal of the Kyoto agreement didn't really help their motor industry in the way that they had hoped.

    This bill goes above and beyond our international agreements requirements.
    29% below 2005 levels by 2020 instead of 20% mandated by Europe.

    Focking madness.


  • #177
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 718 ✭✭✭dynamick


    Do you have a source for a 29% reduction required by 2020?

    From my reading of the bill it's not clear how ETS sector emissions are to be treated or whether forestry and revegetation will be counted in future years toward the targets. These factors will have a massive impact on the cost of reducing emissions.

    The purpose of the Oireachtas is to thrash out these questions. I'm sure this will happen before the bill passes into law. Ireland will have difficulty achieving low carbon lifestyles for the third of the population living in dispersed rural housing. On the other hand, we have plenty of fertile land available for carbon sinks and great wind and wave resources.


  • #178
    mgmt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭mgmt


    dynamick wrote: »
    Do you have a source for a 29% reduction required by 2020?

    From my reading of the bill it's not clear how ETS sector emissions are to be treated or whether forestry and revegetation will be counted in future years toward the targets. These factors will have a massive impact on the cost of reducing emissions.

    The purpose of the Oireachtas is to thrash out these questions. I'm sure this will happen before the bill passes into law. Ireland will have difficulty achieving low carbon lifestyles for the third of the population living in dispersed rural housing. On the other hand, we have plenty of fertile land available for carbon sinks and great wind and wave resources.

    Misread it slightly. 2.5% reduction every year based on 2008 levels.

    Also
    There will be a medium-term target to reduce emissions by 40 per cent by 2030 and a long-term target of 80 per cent by 2050, both compared to 1990 emissions.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1216/breaking44.html


  • #179
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 718 ✭✭✭dynamick


    mgmt wrote: »
    Misread it slightly. 2.5% reduction every year based on 2008 levels.
    You're right that 2.5% X 12 is 30% . However it's not clear from the bill whether the target should be based on compound growth over the period. If the growth is compounded then the reduction is 1 - .975^12 which is about 26%. The draft legislation refers to net reductions. So you have to wonder what's being netted out.
    There will be a medium-term target to reduce emissions by 40 per cent by 2030 and a long-term target of 80 per cent by 2050, both compared to 1990 emissions.
    The UK has also set an 80% target for 2050. I'm not sure that there's any point in getting hung up on targets set for 40yrs time.


Advertisement